1. The defendant is the defendant's 156,257,285 won to the plaintiff joint venture business corporation, and 68,200,000 won to the plaintiff joint venture business corporation.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract with the East-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) on a contract with the Defendant setting the contract amount of KRW 2.86 million (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), the construction period from November 18, 201 to August 30, 201, the warranty bond rate of KRW 3%, and the warranty bond rate of KRW 0.1%.

B. On February 22, 2011, the Eastern Industries entered into a contract with the Plaintiff Dongdong Electrical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongdong Electricity”) for the construction cost of KRW 1226.5 million, and on September 23, 2011, for the metal and windows construction among the instant construction works, KRW 224 million, and around September 201, for the Plaintiff Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sinjin Construction”), to subcontract the construction cost of KRW 253 million with the Plaintiff (trade name: D) for the instant construction work.

C. The instant building was completed around December 23, 201.

On December 7, 2011, the settlement results of the Plaintiff’s settlement of accounts, the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s Collaborative Construction Business is KRW 242 million, the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s East Electrical Business is KRW 18579 million, and the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s construction cost has been increased to KRW 300,000,000,000, respectively, and on February 7, 2012, the same industry submitted to the Defendant a final claim for payment that reflects the increased construction cost (the construction cost of the Plaintiff East Electrical Business shall be adjusted to KRW 170,50,000,000

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, 6, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 201, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction work in this case was delayed due to the use of the price to be paid to the subcontractor of the construction in this case, and the construction work in this case was discontinued. The Defendant, as the owner of the construction in this case, is directly paying the construction cost to the subcontractor including the Plaintiffs.