2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part relating to the principal lawsuit is the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in civil engineering construction business, etc. under the trade name of D, and the Defendant is a company that aims at the construction business, etc.

B. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the non-party E, the principal contractor, and the F access roads and complex construction works in the reinforced army (hereinafter “instant construction works”), with the cost of KRW 570,000,000,000 and the construction period from April 1, 2013 to August 31, 2013 (referring to the change from November 30, 2013 to November 30, 2013).

C. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant for construction period from April 1, 2013 to August 30, 2013 with respect to the instant construction work contracted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). D.

The Plaintiff, according to the instant subcontract, was performing and completed the instant construction work in the capacity of the Defendant’s on-site director.

E. Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Incheon District Court Branch 2012Gadan29412 against the Plaintiff, the succeeding intervenor filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Plaintiff, the garnishee, the Defendant, and the claim amount of KRW 86,076,712 with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price against the Defendant under the instant subcontract, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Incheon District Court 2012Gadan29412 against the Plaintiff. On March 30, 2016, the said court accepted the above application and issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”). The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on April 1, 2016.

[Ground of certification] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was at least 60% of the construction site of this case, and the Plaintiff was obligated to perform additional construction works, such as ruptures, which were not anticipated at the time of the instant subcontract, and thereafter, the Defendant promised to settle the construction cost incurred from the said additional construction and pay the said additional construction cost.

(b).