1. The defendant is against the plaintiff A, the 4,882,693 won, the 1,395,055 won, and the plaintiff C Co., Ltd.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2009, the Defendant contracted D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the Plaintiffs (as to the instant construction project, the Plaintiffs set up a joint contractor with the ratio of shares A70%, Plaintiff B Co., Ltd., 20%, and Plaintiff C Co., Ltd., 10%).

(hereinafter “instant contract”. The instant contract is separated from each of the following types of contracts: (a) the instant overall contract is referred to as “instant overall contract.”

The instant contract was concluded in the long-term continuing construction contract method (the method of adding the total construction amount determined by a successful bidder, etc. and performing the construction contract by number within the scope of the budget of the pertinent year). The overall contract of this case and the construction contract by number of teas by each type of teas (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). When separately specifying the construction contract by number of teas, the initial contract of the instant overall contract and the instant construction contract by number of teas by each type of teas in this case and the subsequent changes are as shown in the attached Table 1. The current status of changes related to the extension of the construction period is as shown in the attached Table 2-1 and the attached Table 2-2.

C. The Plaintiffs completed the construction of each number of vehicles on the corresponding date stated in the attached Table 3’s final date of completion, and the Defendant paid all the construction cost under each number of vehicles as shown in the attached Table 4 to the Plaintiffs.

The relevant provisions of the general terms and conditions of the construction contract applied at the time of conclusion of the instant contract (established Accounting Rules 2200.04-143-4, April 6, 2004) are as shown in attached Table 5.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, 17 (including the number of branch offices; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser E as an incorporated foundation of this court, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion was changed from September 7, 2009 to June 5, 2014 under the overall contract of this case by the termination date of the total construction period under the overall contract of this case, and thus, the Defendant was originally the Defendant.