1. Defendant E in collaboration with H and KRW 50,905,00 for Plaintiff A, KRW 16,80,000 for Plaintiff B, and KRW 10,62,00 for Plaintiff C, respectively.

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant E

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination on Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”)’s claim

A. In relation to the extension of the purpose of use of I Hospital, Defendant F subcontracted the construction work in light of quantity, tidal volume, aesthetic, aesthetic, waterproof, and to the “J” operated by Defendant E and H, and Defendant E and H re-subcontracted the said construction work to the Plaintiffs.

Thus, Defendant F is obligated to directly pay the subcontract price stated in the claim that the Plaintiffs did not receive pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry to the Plaintiffs who entered into a subcontract with Defendant E and H as the ordering person.

B. In light of the determination, there is no specific assertion or proof as to whether the plaintiffs meet the requirements for the direct payment of the subcontract price under each subparagraph of Article 35 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Article 35 (2) (Article 35 (3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry) and there is no specific assertion or proof as to whether the plaintiffs meet the requirements for the direct payment of the subcontract price (Article 35 (4) (Article 35 (3) of the Act on the Construction Industry, it is difficult to view that Defendant F paid all the subcontract price related to the subcontracted work to H because it is recognized that Defendant F received the extension of use use use of the I Hospital and subcontracted part of the subcontracted work to the He.). Even if Defendant F’s direct payment obligation is recognized, the direct payment obligation of the subcontract price is premised on the existence of the contractor’s obligation to pay the subcontract price. However, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant F still has the remainder of the contract price to H by the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against defendant E are accepted for reasonable grounds, and the claims against defendant F are dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.