1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff KRW 47,00,000 and the Defendant B from November 16, 2013.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1 in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff, a construction business entity, concluded a construction contract with the Defendant B and the Plaintiff, on September 7, 2013, stating that construction cost of KRW 97 million shall be the construction cost for the studio-construction project located in the sudio-building project located in the sudio-si in the sudio (U.S.) (hereinafter “instant construction project”) and the construction period shall be from September 5, 2013 to November 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation to pay the instant construction cost, and the fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction project is no dispute between the parties.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff is a person who has received KRW 50 million from the Defendants. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 47 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case from November 16, 2013 to October 21, 2016 for Defendant B; for Defendant C, 6% per annum as prescribed by each Commercial Act until October 6, 2016; and for Defendant C, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning

The judgment on the Defendants’ assertion is that Defendant B could not receive the construction cost from the original contractor E, and the construction work in this case was suspended, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to reverse the instant construction contract, and thereafter, the Plaintiff continued the remaining construction work after concluding a new contract with Defendant C. Thus, Defendant B did not have an obligation to pay the construction cost under the instant construction contract. Thus, Defendant B alleged that there was no obligation to pay the construction cost under the instant construction contract. Therefore, there is no evidence to support that the instant construction contract was reversed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant C shall pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 47 million.