1. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for KRW 10,000,00 and the period from May 3, 2013 to November 11, 2014.

1. On August 17, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”), setting the F Hotel Corporation located in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) as follows (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

Defendant D, the representative director of Defendant C, signed and sealed the contract of this case as Defendant C.

Period: From August 20, 2012 to October 10, 2012; the construction cost: Defendant C renounced the instant construction work on December 2, 2011.

[Judgment of the court below]

2. The Defendants asserted as to the cause of the claim are jointly and severally liable to pay 100 million won to the Plaintiffs as the instant lawsuit out of the following amounts:

① The Defendants, even though they did not have the intent or ability to complete the instant construction work within the construction period, did so on the ground that they belong to the Plaintiffs and concluded the instant contract on the ground that they did not have the intent or capacity to complete the instant construction work, and obtained the payment of a sum of KRW 19

Therefore, the defendants are liable for compensation.

② By November 15, 2012, the Defendants agreed to return KRW 10 million to the Plaintiffs regarding the instant contract, and return KRW 10 million, out of the amount paid as the instant construction cost, to the Plaintiffs by December 2012.

In addition, Defendant C’s discontinuance of the instant construction work is merely about 18%, and since the Plaintiffs paid KRW 219 million as construction cost, including the amount of direct payment to Defendant C’s subcontractor, etc., the Defendants should return the remainder of KRW 165 million after deducting the amount of the base price of Defendant C’s payment from KRW 54 million as unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay the above agreed amount or unjust enrichment.

3. The judgment ① there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants deceptioned the Plaintiffs to acquire construction cost.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(2) Priority.