1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 22,00,000 and the Defendants Company B from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2016.

1. The purport of recognition is that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on July 2014 with the terms that the construction cost for the buildings located outside D and six parcels of land, namely, KRW 113,526,00,00, and completed all construction works on November 3, 2015; Defendant B entered into a contract with Defendant B on the condition that the construction cost for the waterworks, PVC, and heating works, etc.; Defendant B entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the completion of the construction work; Defendant C entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the payment of the construction cost for the remainder of the construction cost for the Plaintiff; Defendant C entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the payment of the construction cost for the construction cost for the remainder of the construction cost for the Plaintiff; or the fact that Defendant C entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the payment of the construction cost for the construction cost for the construction cost for the entire pleadings in

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of construction cost of KRW 22,00,000,00 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in each of the Commercial Act, from January 1, 2016 to September 19, 2016, the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on Defendant B, and from November 15, 2016, to Defendant C, the amount of damages for delay calculated by the rate of 22,00,000 per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost since there were defects, such as completing construction works in the state of the change of cooling and hot water pipes.

However, if the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 reveals the purport of the whole pleading, the defendants merely agreed to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff without imposing any liability on the defects of the construction work on November 3, 2015, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendants' assertion. Thus, the defendants' assertion is without merit.