1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Under the underlying facts, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-8, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 1-3, and the overall purport of the arguments and the appraisal result of appraiser F.

Defendant B and C are the owners of 1/2 shares in G 1040 square meters in Seosan-si, and Defendant D and E are the owners of 1/2 shares in H 919 square meters, respectively, and Defendant D is the sole owners of 163 square meters in G 163 square meters in size, J 29 square meters in size and 355 square meters in Korea.

B. On April 2016, the Defendants contracted eight urban life-type housing construction works on each of the above lands to Esable Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sable Construction”). On April 25, 2016, Nonparty Company subcontracted to the Plaintiff the instant construction work amounting to KRW 431,930,000 for construction cost.

C. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 124 million from April 26, 2016 to July 13, 2016 as construction payment from Nonparty Company, and suspended the instant construction work around July 2016.

After that, the non-party company directly paid 40,200,000 won to the workers employed by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant construction work on November 27, 2017.

E. Meanwhile, it was appraised that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the instant construction works is 30.75%.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction work of this case was executed until the Plaintiff discontinued the construction work of this case is 44.4%, and the period of the construction work of this case is 191,776,920 won, and the Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 164,20,000 from the Nonparty Company. As such, the construction work of this case remains at present 27,576,920 won.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the said subcontract price to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s high-level ratio of construction work performed at the time of suspending the instant construction work is 44.4% or more, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the instant construction work.