1. Defendant B:39,455,600 won for the Plaintiff; Defendant D 45,542,200 won for each of the said money; and each of the said money on May 10, 2016 for the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, who runs a small-scale artificial fishery business with the trade name of “E”, received construction from Defendant B, who runs a large-scale artificial fishery business from around October 19, 2014 to around October 19, 2015, and performed construction work equivalent to KRW 196,455,600 as stated in the following specification of transactions, and received KRW 157,00,000 among them.

GH I JJ JJJ L M M NM NO P P P Q Q Q Q f DFR

B. From around September 3, 2015 to May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff received construction works equivalent to KRW 45,542,200, as indicated in the “D” column of the same Table from Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

[Grounds for recognition] The defendants do not clearly dispute the defendants, or the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, 11, 14, 16, 19-23, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay the accounts payable in the construction cost of KRW 39,455,600 and its delay damages, and Defendant D is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 45,542,200 and its delay damages.

B. The part rejected by the Defendants 1 as to the joint and several liability relationship between Defendants B and C, the Plaintiff bears the duty to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff in the partnership relationship with each other, and Defendant D is merely Defendant B and C’s private enterprise in its hinterland, but in substance, it is merely the form of a legal entity. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the construction price to the Plaintiff under Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff managed the details of transactions by dividing them into F and D, and that it is reasonable to regard the money deposited to the Plaintiff in the name of Defendant B F after September 15, 2015 as repayment of Defendant B’s obligation, the facts acknowledged earlier and the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 23 alone have not only the partnership relationship between Defendant B and C, but also the form of Defendant D in external form.