1. The Defendant’s KRW 559,515,674 to the Plaintiffs, as well as KRW 6% per annum from May 7, 2015 to April 27, 2018, and thereafter.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs organized a joint supply and demand company (40% of the investment ratio, Plaintiff Cheongsung Construction Co., Ltd., and 60% of the total construction company for Plaintiff Cheongsong Construction Co., Ltd.) and contracted the construction works for the A-Housing District to be implemented by the Seoul Housing City Corporation (formerly amended). The Plaintiffs entered into a subcontract with the B Company for soil, structures, and water supply and sewerage construction works among the said construction works.

B. Since then, upon the discontinuance of construction work by Company B, the Plaintiffs terminated a subcontract agreement with Company B by paying approximately KRW 12 billion for the construction cost. On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a subcontract agreement with the Defendant and the aforementioned construction works with respect to the remainder of soil, structures, and water supply and sewerage construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”), with respect to the construction cost of KRW 3,104,530,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from April 29, 2014 to December 31, 2014.

C. The Seoul Housing Corporation paid the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 1,973,388,953 (i.e., the progress payment of KRW 233,354,00 for once + KRW 300,256,00 for the two-time progress payment of KRW 528,938,80 for the three-time progress payment of KRW 528,938,80 for the three-time progress payment + KRW 966,85,200 for the four-time progress payment of KRW 96,85,200 for the four-time progress payment of KRW 56,045,047).

Plaintiff

On February 16, 2015, E.S. notified the Defendant to resolve overdue wages and provisional seizure. On February 27, 2015, the instant subcontract was terminated pursuant to Article 25(1) of the terms and conditions of the instant subcontract contract and Article 1(1) of the Special Agreement on the ground that the instant subcontract contract cannot be performed normally due to delay in the contract on the modification of design, disputes with employees, several provisional seizures, etc. as the Defendant failed to resolve this, and thus, the instant subcontract was terminated on March 2, 2015.

[Based on recognition] The number of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 shall include the number, below.