1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 39,00,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from April 26, 2016, and Defendant C.

1. Basic facts

A. After reporting the marriage on February 2, 2007, the Defendants had been engaged in marital life until April 30, 2013.

B. Defendant C requested Defendant B to operate the “D industry company” under the name of Defendant B with the name of the business operator.

C. On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a new E-construction contract, and the contractor’s name was Defendant B and entered into a contract.

(A) Evidence No. 1, hereinafter “instant contract”). The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Construction period: 71,00,000 won (in addition to surtax) in advance of KRW 34,000,000 ( immediately after the contract) and remaining 20,000,000 (by the last day of April 2013) of the 30-day contract amount after the completion of the seven-day project after the commencement of the project in 2012;

D. Upon Defendant C’s request, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 34,00,000 in advance to Defendant B’s account.

(A) Evidence 2

E. However, the Corporation did not proceed with the instant contract, and the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of the said advance payment up to now.

【Ground of recognition】An absence of dispute, Gap No. 1 and 2

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The indication of Defendant C(1) claim: Defendant C did not perform the construction work even after receiving advance payment of KRW 34,000,000,000, as stated in paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment, even if it was scheduled to complete the construction work; and Defendant C cancelled the contract of this case and sought payment of the above KRW 34,00,000 as restitution and interest for delay thereon.

The duplicate of the complaint of this case seeking the return of advance payment already paid on the ground of the Defendant’s failure to perform construction works reached Defendant B and Defendant C on April 25, 2016 and July 1, 2016, which eventually cannot be interpreted to the effect that the contract of this case was cancelled on the ground of nonperformance and thus, sought restitution.

(2) Grounds for recognition: Judgment by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. Defendant B (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B lent his business registration name to Defendant C, and Defendant C was the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant B.