1. The Defendants jointly share the amount of KRW 4,132,00 to Plaintiff A, as well as Defendant Substitute Construction Co., Ltd. on November 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Status of the parties to the dispute 1) The Korea Highway Corporation run from the Kim Sea Cdong to the Ddong section of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City to the Ddong section of Gangseo-gu (hereinafter “instant road construction”).

2) The Defendant Substitute Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Substitute Construction”) is a contractor who has undertaken the instant road works from September 2012 to September 2012.

(3) Around September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) contracted the instant road works to a brick construction company on or around December 2, 2008; (b) on or around July 3, 2012, the Korea Highway Corporation guaranteed the performance of the construction works of a brick construction company as a result of a decision to commence rehabilitation against the brick construction company; and (c) on or around September 18, 2012, the Korea Highway Corporation selected a joint supply and demand company organized by the Defendant Substitute Construction and Hanyang Co., Ltd. as a guarantee implementation company; and (c) on or around September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff Company: (a) made a wooden machine and a 69.5 square meters of a pentble house (hereinafter “instant house”) adjacent to the site of the instant road works.

(4) The instant housing was located around 1945, and the remodeling work was conducted around 2010 with respect to walls, roof parts, etc. other than columns and beams.

(B) Registration of initial ownership on February 1, 2010

In order to expand the existing fourth-line highway from the end of 2013 to the eight-line highways, Defendant Substitute Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ampcom work”) may be conducted after drilling the hole on the existing part of the asphalt concrete of the existing road with the bracker of the bracker of the bracker located within the scope of the road construction site in the instant case (hereinafter referred to as “Ampcom work”).

(2) The lower court determined that the lower court determined that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lower court’s judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lower judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(C) The first time is established below the road for the passage of village.