1. The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant Seojin-jin Co., Ltd., ordered the F Co., Ltd. operating E to install a gypt construction site at the factory site located G on G on May 20, 2015, the construction period was up to June 5, 2015; the construction cost including labor cost was up to 40,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax); and (2) around May 12, 2015, it ordered the production and installation of a gypt construction during the gypt construction site located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. H as labor cost of KRW 2,00,000 (materials by itself).

B. Defendant U.N.T. Co., Ltd. ordered the F F to set the construction cost of KRW 125,000,000 in relation to the construction work of a strawer to be installed in the factory construction site located in J of the racing-si.

(The duration and duration of the contract are not clear). (b)

The Plaintiffs’ claim attachment 1) As Changwon District Court 2015Kadan1052, F provisionally seized KRW 37,655,220 among each of the above construction price claims that the said Defendants had against the said Defendants. The said provisional attachment decision was served on July 23, 2015 on the Defendants (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment decision”).

(2) Meanwhile, on July 21, 2015, the Changwon District Court 2015Hu277, the Changwon District Court 2015, “F would pay the Plaintiff KRW 14,92,720, KRW 5,885,00 to Plaintiff B, KRW 13,252,50 to Plaintiff C, KRW 3,525,000 per annum to Plaintiff D, and KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the above payment order to the day of full payment” was issued and the payment order became final and conclusive on September 8, 2015.

3 The plaintiffs transferred the above provisional seizure to the Changwon District Court 2015TTT 51380 upon the above final payment order, and received the seizure and collection order stating that the above seized claims are collected, and the above collection order was served on October 7, 2015, respectively.

2. According to the above-mentioned determination as to the cause of the claim, according to each of the construction contracts in recognition, Defendant Jinjin Co., Ltd., in total 42,00.