1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff and Defendant A with respect thereto from December 8, 2016, and Defendant B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a construction contract with the construction cost of KRW 444,400,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the supply and construction of the main household at C site “C site” (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) and the construction period from December 1, 2015 to the completion of inspection (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. From March 28, 2016 to July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 294,056,790 as the construction price of the instant case to Defendant A.

C. On July 29, 2016, Defendant A drafted a letter of undertaking stating that “The construction cost under the instant construction contract was KRW 290,000,000,000 until July 1, 2016, and currently the progress rate of the instant construction project is approximately 60%, and the construction is promised to be completed without delay under the instant construction contract” (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”) to the Plaintiff, and was additionally paid KRW 50,000,70 from the Plaintiff as the construction cost of the instant case.

Defendant B acquired the status of the subcontractor under the instant construction contract from Defendant A on August 2016, and received additional payment of KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff on August 26, 2016.

E. After that, the Defendants suspended the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff served a copy of the instant complaint on the grounds that the Defendants did not perform the instant construction work, and expressed its intent to cancel the instant construction contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant construction contract was lawfully rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s intent to rescind the contract, which was interrupted by the progress of 60%.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly received the amount exceeding the construction cost due to the completion of the instant construction in return for restitution to the Plaintiff following the rescission of the contract = 177,417,490 = the Plaintiff’s payment to the Defendants.