1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s ground of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a person engaging in the business of selling and remodelling interior materials in the trade name called E.

The defendants are those engaged in the construction and remodeling of housing, commercial buildings, etc. as the spouse D and Dong business, which is the spouse of defendant B.

At the request of D and the Defendants, the Plaintiff had engaged in interior work between April 2016 and September, and was not paid KRW 74,400,000 among the construction cost.

D and the Defendants committed a joint signature even if they were to pay the construction cost by March 31, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendants, as the clients of construction and the preparation of a written statement of payment, are jointly and severally liable to pay the said construction cost of KRW 74,400,000 and the damages for delay that have been paid to the Plaintiff.

2. There is no dispute between the parties that D, with the trade name of F, is responsible for the Plaintiff as the principal agent who requested construction, requested the Plaintiff to perform the interior works of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and that D, with the trade name of F, did not pay KRW 74,400,000 out of the construction cost.

(D) The Plaintiff and Defendant D were co-defendants, and the decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive between the Plaintiff and Defendant D). However, the Defendants were running their businesses as D and D.

In the case of whether the Defendants requested construction to the Plaintiff with D, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

First of all, Defendant C (Defendant B’s son C) operated Indian fishery as a partnership business with D.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C requested construction to the Plaintiff.

In relation to Defendant B, there was a gap between Defendant B and B, and there was an entry at the work site pursuant to D (the Defendant B’s statement on the date of the second and sixth pleadings, and D stated that they were co-defendants present at the second pleading and temporarily living together with Defendant B on the date of the second pleading).