1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 10,000,000 and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) E on December 2012.

In order to be equipped with access roads necessary to operate gas filling stations and gas stations in Y and G in order to determine the cause of the claim as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) to contract H and I ground access packing construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). The fact that the Plaintiff completed the instant access road packing construction before April 2012 is without dispute between the parties. The Defendants concluded the instant contract and agreed to set the construction cost at KRW 20 million,000,000, and the additional construction is required, and the Plaintiff received KRW 15,000,000 from the Defendants.

According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 10,000,000 under the contract of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

The Plaintiff, upon entering into the instant contract, ordered Defendant E to pay all the costs of the instant construction work in accordance with his direction, and the Plaintiff completed the construction work in accordance with Defendant E’s instruction, which was 38,144,012, and the Defendants are obliged to pay 23,14,012, which remains after subtracting KRW 15,000,000, which was already paid to the Plaintiff.

However, there is an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to perform construction work as ordered by the Defendants and to receive all of the expenses incurred in the construction work as the construction work price, it is not sufficient to recognize the above agreement only by the descriptions of the evidence No. 4, No. 5-1, No. 2, No. 7, and No. 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above agreement. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion above