2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 14, 2011, Egypt C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Egypt C&C”) was subcontracted by the Defendant during the construction period of KRW 3,692,70,000 (including value-added tax, and thereafter increased to KRW 4,958,98,98,301) among the construction cost of Gwangju Metropolitan City, which was ordered by the Defendant to repair and lease sewage conduits (BTL) from the 2008 Gwangju Metropolitan City, which was ordered by the Magdong Environment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BTL”), for the construction cost of Gwangju Sewage culvert BTL2, 700,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontracted construction”) and the construction period of construction from March 15, 2011 to April 14, 2013.

B. On July 17, 2012, Egypt issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note No. 50,00,000 won at face value, and on July 17, 2012, the date of issuance, the payment date, the payment date, the place of payment, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and the place of payment, each of the promissory notes with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff. On the same day, Egypt No. 452, No. 2012, No. 2012, No. 2012, No. 2012, No. 2012, No. 2012, No. 2012, No. 1

C. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the instant collection order”) regarding “the amount until it reaches the above claim amount out of the construction cost claim against the Defendant of the instant subcontracted construction work against the Defendant of the Dasan C&C” as the Gwangju District Court Decision 2013TTT2644, supra, by using the obligor, the Defendant, the third obligor, and the amount claimed as KRW 50,107,140. The said order was served on the Defendant, the third obligor, as of June 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 3, Gap's evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul's evidence No. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged by the parties 1. The Plaintiff holds the Defendant’s claim for the construction cost of the subcontracted project in this case. The Plaintiff received the instant collection order against KRW 50,107,140, out of the above construction cost claim, and thus, the Defendant received the instant collection order against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is either KRW 50,107,500 and its amount.