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

A. On September 22, 2011, the Defendant: (a) awarded a contract for the construction of a stable for a livestock cooperative (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) to Non-Party Pyeongtaek Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party Pyeongtaek Construction”) for the construction cost of KRW 906,721,060 (including value-added tax); (b) the construction of a steel frame and a board board among the said new construction works was awarded a subcontract for KRW 348,00,000 of the construction cost on the same machinery of a limited partnership company (hereinafter referred to as “the same machinery”); and (c) the Defendant paid KRW 958,453,641 in total from September 30, 201 to December 21, 2012 to Pyeongtaek Construction.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order regarding KRW 235,564,922 of the construction price claim against the Defendant of the same machine as the obligor and the Defendant as the garnishee. On June 11, 2014, the said court issued a seizure and collection order as stated in the above application, and issued the said order to the Defendant on June 13, 2014. The said order was served on the Defendant on June 13, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers)

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's alleged joint-use machines have a claim for the construction cost of KRW 182,80,000 against the defendant in accordance with a direct payment agreement for the subcontract price, and the plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to the above claim for the construction cost against the defendant of the joint-use machines. The defendant is obligated to pay the above construction cost of KRW 182,80,000 to the plaintiff.

B. According to the aforementioned evidence, it is acknowledged that the Defendant drafted an agreement with the Dongyang Machinery to directly pay the subcontract price in connection with the instant construction project on November 201, 201. Among the instant construction works, there is no dispute between the parties as to the completion of the said joint construction project, but the subcontract price is 348 in the contents of the above direct payment agreement (Evidence A).