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

A. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant agreed to accord and sell part of the construction work to the east General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the name of the stock company omitted) for the construction period from December 27, 201 to March 27, 2013, and the construction cost of KRW 7.81 billion to KRW 7.15 billion (excluding the additional tax), and agreed to pay KRW 30% of the construction cost, in lieu of payment of KRW 2,330,400,00, the amount equivalent to KRW 30% of the construction cost.

B. The east General Construction subcontracted to the Plaintiff the supply and installation works of lighting fixtures (hereinafter “instant subcontracted construction”) at KRW 285,00,000.

C. The term of the instant apartment construction contract was extended on July 31, 2013, and was extended again on September 30, 2014.

The Plaintiff completed the subcontracted project of this case by October 2013, and the east General Construction was completed on November 201, 2013 and completed the instant apartment construction on November 11, 2013.

E. On December 3, 2013, the Plaintiff provisionally seized KRW 59,603,30,00 among the instant apartment construction cost claims against the Defendant by the Gwangju District Court 2013Kadan7290, which was held against the Defendant, and the said provisional attachment decision was served on December 17, 2013 on the Defendant.

F. When the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order seeking KRW 69,774,104 with the Gwangju District Court Order 2013 tea397, 2017 against the construction of east-do, the Plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order and served the Defendant on April 23, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 5-2, the whole purport of oral argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the apartment construction of this case was completed by the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant paid the whole construction price to the east General Construction, the defendant did not pay the construction price above the collection claim under the above seizure and collection order. Thus, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff the construction price above the collection claim under the above seizure and collection order.