A. On July 1, 2010, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with a limited liability company A (hereinafter “A”), with the content that the construction work of the Changjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City was to be executed not later than August 31, 2010 with the construction work cost of KRW 737,00,000 among the construction work of the new site complex facilities (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and that the construction work cost of the instant construction is to be revised to October 20, 2010 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22420, Oct. 20, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22420, Oct. 20, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22420, Oct. 20, 2010>

B. On August 31, 2010, the Defendant transferred KRW 196,962,00 to A in the name of Nonghyup (Account Number B). On September 1, 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 295,962,00,00 in total, which is a part of the construction cost under the instant subcontract, by delivering promissory notes to A, a bank at the place of payment, with the face value of KRW 99,00,00,000, and paid KRW 295,962,00 in total, among the construction cost under the instant subcontract. A completed the instant construction on October 20, 2010.

C. Meanwhile, on August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 127,160,000 during the instant construction from A and completed all the remainder of construction except for some construction works.

Accordingly, on November 17, 2010, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order on the claim against A for the claim of KRW 77,160,000,00 for the unpaid construction cost against A under the instant subcontract that A had against the Defendant, and the provisional attachment order on the above claim was served on the Defendant on November 28, 2010.

Accordingly, A raised an objection to the provisional attachment order of the above claim, and the Jeonju District Court, on February 23, 2011, rendered a decision to authorize the provisional attachment order of the above claim to the extent of KRW 75,009,400 on the ground that the necessity of preservation and preservation is substantiated within the scope of KRW 75,009,40 among the unpaid construction costs of the Plaintiff against A.