1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion AE borrowed KRW 390 million from the plaintiff A to use for the construction fund, and KRW 260 million from the plaintiff B as the end of August 2017.

The Defendants, as the owner of the building of the AF-Building Construction in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction”) and the owner of the instant construction, awarded a lump sum subcontract for the instant construction project to the CC branch Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C branch Construction”), and on November 15, 2016, C branch Construction awarded a lump sum subcontract for the instant construction project to AE with the construction cost of KRW 2.45 billion.

However, the CE does not pay the construction cost. Since the Defendants are obligated to pay the construction cost to AE under Article 35 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Plaintiffs, the creditors of AE, seek the payment of the construction cost against the Defendants in subrogation of AE.

2. We examine the judgment, and even if the plaintiffs have the loan claims against AE, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone constitutes the existence of the contract price claim against the defendants of AE, namely, the fact that AE performed part of the instant construction work as the subcontractor of the defendants, and that the defendants agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to AE, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.