1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff 3.4 million won and 8.5 million won among them.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and D entered into a construction contract with the Defendants on the construction work for the interior repair work for the Ulsan Jung-gu E and the 1st underground floor (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 34 million (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2 million to the Defendants as the introduction cost of the terms and conditions under which the Defendants are responsible for and completed the construction, and paid KRW 8 million on June 17, 2014, and KRW 2 million on July 1, 2014 as the construction cost of this case.

The Defendants partially proceeded with the instant construction, but discontinued the construction work on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the construction cost.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a separate contract for the toilet repair works in the restaurant operated by the Plaintiff among the instant construction works, and the Defendants completed the said toilet construction works.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff rescinded the instant construction contract by delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case as the Defendants did not actually proceed with the instant construction project, the Defendants are obliged to pay the total of KRW 12 million of the construction cost and the introduction cost paid by the Plaintiff following the cancellation of the instant construction contract.

(2) The Defendants asserted that, since the Plaintiff failed to pay the construction cost and the construction cost was not completed, the Plaintiff did not have a duty to return KRW 2 million received as the introduction cost, and that the Defendants did not have a duty to pay at least KRW 850,000,000 as the construction cost out of the remainder of KRW 10,50,000,000,

B. (1) If the above facts and the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 were added to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and D jointly assume the instant construction cost, and the agreement on the instant construction contract.