1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 24,700,000 and Defendant Incorporated Agricultural Company from December 16, 2014.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff operated the Plaintiff’s comprehensive architect C, and performed the design and supervision of the construction of a factory on the ground of 13148 square meters of land for a factory in Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant construction”).

However, even though Defendant 1 Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) finally succeeded to the owner’s position of the instant construction, and decided to fully pay the Plaintiff the design and supervision service cost of the instant construction to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 Company paid only KRW 10 million out of the total service cost of KRW 34.7 million and did not pay the remainder of KRW 24.7 million.

Under the above circumstances, the Defendants prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of payment with the purport that they would pay the above KRW 24.7 million to the Plaintiff (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “instant letter of payment”). As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 24.7 million and the damages for delay.

B. Defendant Company did not delegate the design and supervision of the instant construction work to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant company did not prepare a written statement of payment of this case, but the defendant company only delivered the defendant company's seal impression to the defendant B for the purpose of using the defendant company's seal impression for the authorization and permission work of this case upon the request of the defendant B, who is an employee of B.

2. Determination

(a) Provisions of applicable Acts to a claim against Defendant B: Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment made by deemed as private capital);

B. In full view of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 (the Defendant Company’s assertion that the instant payment note was forged, however, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned defense is not accepted) and the overall purport of pleadings against the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company up to December 15, 2014, the amount of KRW 24.7 million out of the service cost of the instant construction project to the Plaintiff.