1. Defendant A, B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 1,120,000,000 and their related amount from October 18, 2011.

1. The following facts are deemed as having been led to the confession by Defendant C pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C. There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the remainder of the Defendants, or may be acknowledged by taking account of the following: Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul’s evidence Nos. 3 and 4; Eul’s order to submit financial transaction information and the entire purport of oral arguments with respect to the Mamo Savings Bank (hereinafter “Mamo Savings Bank”).

On May 15, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) on each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) owned by the said Defendant, with respect to a construction work for which each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) is newly constructed on the ground of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and the construction period from May 15, 2009 to August 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

As a result, the Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a modified contract on December 31, 2009 with the same work price as that of the previous case and the changed contract on February 28, 2010 with the completion date of the construction works.

B. On January 1, 2009, the joint and several surety of Defendant B, C, and D, and the Plaintiff who acquired ownership of the instant land, the Defendant established a provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty E regarding the instant land. However, upon the Plaintiff’s request on January 7, 2010, Nonparty F, an employee of the Plaintiff, transferred the status of the said provisional registration holder and completed the said registration.

However, the defendant A again asked the plaintiff to transfer the above provisional registration in the name of F to the defendant B, C and D, and the plaintiff against the construction cost.