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

A. Defendant Ss. Construction Co., Ltd (hereinafter “S. Construction”) contracted an apartment construction project of KRW 124, South-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, which was ordered by the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment and Development Project Association, with a contract for the construction project of KRW 124, South-dong, Seoul. On April 1, 2013 (hereinafter “S. Development”), the part of the structural construction during the said construction project (hereinafter “instant construction”) was decided and subcontracted from April 5, 2013 to January 31, 2015 for the period of KRW 4,893,410,60 (including value-added tax).

B. On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied Thai Development with building materials, etc. necessary for the instant construction project, and entered into a security agreement on the said building materials owned by Thai Development to secure a claim for the payment of goods, etc. Accordingly, from November 7, 2013 to January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied Thai Development with building materials listed in the separate sheet (including value-added tax) equivalent to KRW 10,813,000 (hereinafter “instant materials”).

C. However, the instant construction was suspended due to the aggravation of the financial situation, etc., and around April 5, 2014, the Defendant Saturdays Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Stop Construction”) subcontracted the instant construction that had been executed by Tae-tae Construction from Defendant CS. Construction.

On the other hand, Defendant AS Construction completed the structural construction, which is the instant construction, through Defendant AS Construction, and is proceeding with the outer finishing construction of the said apartment with the aim of October 2015 occupancy.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 and 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. As to the main claim, the materials of this case supplied by the plaintiff to Tae-tae Development, which were alleged by the plaintiff, are owned by the plaintiff according to the above transfer security agreement between the plaintiff and Tae-tae Development, and Tae-tae Development suspended the construction of this case.