2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Limited Company BB Construction is borne by the said Defendant.

J. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the construction period from June 19, 2009 to December 18, 2010 with respect to the construction work under the name of "O" (hereinafter "the instant construction work"), which was ordered by the Navy, with the construction period of KRW 00 (the base amount of the deposit). The Plaintiff received KRW 000 as advance payment from the Nam-gun on June 16, 2009.

B. The plaintiff, around July 3, 2009, shall be subject to BB Construction by the defendant limited liability company (hereinafter "B Construction").

Among the construction works of this case, a subcontract to subcontract reinforced concrete construction works in 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the "subcontract construction contract of this case") was concluded, and 000 won was paid to BB construction as an advance payment for construction works in July 8, 2009.

C. Around June 7, 2010, while performing the instant construction project, BB construction suspended construction from the Defendant’s Republic of Korea on the basis of seizure of the construction cost for South-Nam under the instant subcontracting contract. Around September 10, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant subcontracting contract, and the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant subcontracting contract on October 26, 2010, and around November 16, 2010, the ordering person notified that the instant subcontracting contract was terminated.

D. Meanwhile, with respect to the claim for construction cost related to the subcontract contract of this case which BB Construction has against South and North Korea, the defendant Republic of Korea received as of June 7, 2010 the claim amount of KRW 00,000, and the decision reached the third debtor, YD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DD") on June 10, 201. The decision reached the provisional attachment order of claims with the claim amount of KRW 00,000 as of October 4, 201. The above decision reached the Navy on October 18, 2010. The decision reached the provisional attachment order of claims amount of KRW 20,000, which reaches the claim amount of KRW 20,000,000 as of November 2, 201. The decision reached the claim amount of KRW 20,010,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000.

E. On May 16, 201, Nam-gun deposited the remainder of the construction cost in the instant case (i.e., the down payment of KRW 000-Insurance premium of KRW 000-Advance payment of KRW 0000- liquidated damages for delay) as the following reasons at the Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court’s Yancheon Branch in 201, 1676.

- - The following:

In a situation where it is unclear whether the subcontract contract of this case was terminated, the plaintiff and B B were liable to the debtor, and all kinds of (a) decisions of seizure, etc. as seen above were served. Thus, a mixed deposit is made pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code and Article 248(1) of the

F. Meanwhile, as the Plaintiff renounced the instant construction, the Plaintiff continued the construction by a direct management method, and completed the construction on March 23, 201, which was delayed for more than three months than the originally scheduled construction.

G. On May 201, the Plaintiff agreed to 000 won with respect to the flagCC for BB Construction and BB Construction.

H. Meanwhile, in addition to the aforementioned advance payment of KRW 000, the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 as a promissory note from May 8, 2010 to November 30, 2010, KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000 as a promissory note from March 12, 2011 to July 16, 201.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute over Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act (B construction and D D D)

2. The assertion and judgment

According to the above facts, the plaintiff paid all the construction cost corresponding to the BB Construction Co., Ltd within the advance payment period received from the Nam-gun. Thus, the plaintiff shall have the right to claim for payment of the deposit deposited by the Nam-gun. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, but the costs of lawsuit arising between the plaintiff and the defendant D D D Heavys, ceivable power, and the Republic of Korea shall be borne by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided