1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 62,289,076 with the Plaintiff and Defendant B and E with respect thereto, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a party 1) The plaintiff is a A apartment in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case").

(2) Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was an autonomous management organization consisting of the occupants, and Defendant D was an officer of the Plaintiff. Defendant B (hereinafter “instant construction”) performed the construction work of replacing old water pipes of the instant apartment to the company operating a construction business of comprehensive facilities for construction.

3) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)

(B) Defendant E is a service company responsible for the management of the instant apartment, and Defendant E works as the director of the technical division of the instant apartment management office as an employee of Defendant C. B. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff publicly announced the instant construction project to select the company in charge of the instant construction, and accordingly, selected Defendant B as the construction company, and concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with Defendant B and the construction period from March 5, 2015 to July 31, 2015, with the construction cost of KRW 767,80,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction cost of Defendant B and the construction period of the instant apartment.

2) The Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 767,80,000 for the construction cost under the instant construction contract to Defendant B. (c) The completion date of the relevant criminal case is as follows: (a) Defendant B’s directors G, Defendant D, and E conspired to divide the construction cost of the instant construction project that Defendant B would receive; and (b) Defendant B attempted to determine the criteria for selecting the bidder of the instant construction project in accordance with the Defendant’s construction performance so that Defendant B would be favorable to receiving the successful bid; and (c) attempted to select Defendant B as the contractor of the instant construction project.

Ultimately, Defendant B concluded the instant construction contract with the construction cost as the construction cost, thereby incurring damages equivalent to the difference between the construction cost of KRW 767,800,000 and the legitimate construction cost.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). 2 Defendant D and E conspired with the above G as above, Defendant B caused the construction cost to be paid. 767,800.