1. The Plaintiffs’ obligation under the land purchase and sale and construction contract of May 14, 2014 against Defendant C is KRW 7,300,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiffs, the husband and wife, asserted that the land E (hereinafter “instant land”) was equivalent to the land price for the original F, and sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation amounting to KRW 82,00,000. However, the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit against the said F, and sought confirmation of the absence of the remaining obligation amounting to KRW 220,000 under the instant construction contract only for Defendant C.

B. As to Defendant C, the Plaintiffs purchased the instant land and Defendant C entered into a land purchase and construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the content that Defendant C would build a building on the instant land. KRW 350,000,000,000, and the Plaintiffs paid KRW 40,000 to Defendant C the remainder of KRW 220,000,000,000 at the time of completion of the structural construction, when concluding the structural construction. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 130,000,000,000 in total of the said down payment and intermediate payment to Defendant C.

B. In relation to the preparation of the instant letter of delegation, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that there is no obligation against Defendant D because they did not prepare the instant letter of delegation in the case of Plaintiff A, but in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiffs were married couple; (b) the Plaintiffs entered into the instant construction contract under the names of the Plaintiffs joint owners; (c) the obligation to pay the remainder of this case was jointly and severally borne by the Plaintiffs; and (d) at the time of the preparation of the instant construction contract, Plaintiff A prepared the instant letter of delegation with the intent to pay part of the remainder of payment that the Plaintiffs would pay to Defendant C.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no obligation to Defendant D because the plaintiffs B did not prepare the letter of delegation of this case.