2. Defendant.

A. Defendant A A.M. Urban Environment Improvement Association (hereinafter “Defendant A.M.”) is the implementer of the removal of existing buildings and the construction of the main complex building (hereinafter “instant construction”) in accordance with the urban environment rearrangement project in the A.M. district, and Defendant A.M. is the contractor of the construction of the main complex building (hereinafter “Defendant A.M.”).

B. On April 30, 2014, the Defendant Union prepared an entrustment contract for construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal for the disposal of construction waste discharged from the construction site of this case. According to the above contract, each of the trusters association, consignees (collecters), C, consignees (sellers), D, E, and Plaintiff was stated. The contract term from April 8, 2014 to September 30, 2014 was set at KRW 12,813 per ton of waste concrete and KRW 35,00 per ton of mixed construction waste.

C. Accordingly, the service price for the construction waste of this case disposed of by the Plaintiff by October 2014 is a total of KRW 90,970,000 (including value-added tax) or the Defendant Union paid KRW 20,000,000 on December 8, 2014 and did not pay the remainder of KRW 70,970,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including separate numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. ex officio determination of the legality of a lawsuit against the Defendant Company is based on examining the legality of the part of the lawsuit in this case against the Defendant Company, and on whether the obligee’s right to the obligor exists to be preserved by subrogation in a creditor subrogation lawsuit, which is an ex officio investigation by the court. As such, the court has the duty to verify the existence of the preserved claim ex officio when any circumstances discovered to suspect the existence of the preserved claim upon examining all the litigation materials presented to the court.