1. The defendant D or Scar General Construction Co., Ltd. shall jointly:

A. Plaintiff A’s KRW 103,689,00 and 85,514 among them.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C, around March 2016, concluded a contract with Defendant Phee Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Pungsung case”), respectively, on August 31, 2016, with the construction cost of KRW 1.69.5 billion and the completion date of the instant construction project for three multi-household houses on the land outside E and three parcels (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. Around March 20, 2016, Defendant D subcontracted the pellet construction work among the instant construction works to Defendant D with the cost of construction KRW 540 million. The said Defendant re-subcontracted the Plaintiff A with the total of KRW 140,500,000,000 in total of the construction cost of the mold and the basic construction work (based on KRW 130,500,000,000,000 in total), and re-subcontracted the Plaintiff B with the construction work related to steel and concrete.

(hereinafter “instant re-subcontract project”). C.

The instant construction and sub-subcontracted construction were suspended on May 2016, and from July 2017, Defendant C, the owner of the construction, directly managed the construction. The progress of the construction performed by the Plaintiffs up to the time of the discontinuance of the construction work is 73.8% by Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B 80.36% by the end of the construction work.

【Defendant C, D: Fact that there is no dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 5, defendant scarcity case as a whole, etc.

2. As to each claim against Defendant D and scarcity

A. According to the above facts, Defendant D, who is the party to the contract for the instant re-subcontract work to the Plaintiffs, is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the Plaintiffs’ base value and the ratio of the construction cost of the contract.

However, with respect to the contract price of Plaintiff B, the above Plaintiff agreed to calculate the construction area of KRW 435,00 per square meter, and claimed that the total construction amount reaches KRW 69,60,000 per square meter. However, there is no evidence that the contract was concluded in excess of KRW 1,50,000 per square meter who is the Defendant D, and therefore, the contract price recognized by this court is limited to KRW 6,525,00 (=435 square meter x 1,50,000) and the above Plaintiff’s assertion exceeding the above recognition scope.