1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 1,070,000 to the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto from October 30, 2017, and Defendant C.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) was awarded a contract for construction works for a new factory in the Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, the construction cost of which is KRW 240,00,000 for the new factory; (b) from July 1, 2016 to October 1, 2016 for the construction period; (c) from F, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Handong-gun, the construction cost of the new factory in the manufacturing site is KRW 230,00,000 for the construction cost of the new factory in the manufacturing site; and (d) from July 1, 2016 to October 1, 2016 for the construction period, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction works of the new factory in the manufacturing site in the Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, Gandong-gun, and received from I on the same date.

B. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff complained of the L dump truck and L dump truck borrower, stating, “The Plaintiff discarded 40 to 50 dump truck without permission from August 4, 2016 to August 6, 2016 at the three construction sites of the manufacturing site of 3 lots, other than Gyeongbuk-gun E, and 6 lots of neighboring facilities.”

C. From a prosecutor on January 26, 2017, the Defendants and M were subject to a disposition of suspicion on the following grounds: “The Defendants and the Defendants were aware that the suspects brought about soil and sand at the construction site without the complainant’s permission, but the said construction site was recognized as land subject to soil and sand among the truck articles by this day; the Defendant had already been stored in another truck at the time of checking the site; and the Defendant had not taken any specific measures, such as indicating the fact, even when there was no longer need for soil and sand, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendants and M did not go against the above site, and thus, they were subject to a disposition of suspicion on the grounds that “it is insufficient to recognize the intention of interference with business.”

1) Defendant C: Defendant B: (a) using L 25 tons dump trucks from August 4, 2016 to August 6, 2016, Defendant B: (b) brought about 25 tons of 9 dump trucks to nine dump trucks in Gyeongbuk-gun E in which the complainant was developing the site for the new construction of the factory operation; and (c) caused them to interfere with the business by bringing about 25 tons of dump trucks to nine dump trucks.