However, the defendant asserts that, by February 23, 2016, the lawsuit of this case was brought without paying the price of goods in KRW 35,55,90,000.

In regard to this, the defendant recognized the payment obligation of goods except for KRW 19,266,090, which was put into B among the plaintiff's claims, and claimed that the non-party C, who had worked as an internal director of the defendant company, was a personal transaction with the plaintiff.

Therefore, this paper examines the existence of the goods cost liability invested at the construction site B.

2. The defendant himself/herself as the representative director of the defendant company and in fact managed the defendant company Eul as the defendant company's representative director in the statement No. 3-2 and No. 5-1, and the defendant's preparatory document received as of November 17, 2016, etc. The above Eul argued that he/she changed the above Eul's representative director into Eul (the defendant company's internal director of the defendant company as the defendant company's representative director of the F (the defendant's representative representative in this lawsuit) due to the circumstance that the above D could not be present in the criminal case violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the civil case of claim for construction cost, which was filed for distribution support of the Daegu District Court. At the fifth day of pleading of this case, in light of the fact that the defendant company stated that the above Eul's representative held 10% of the shares of the defendant company's company, G, 45% of the above C's relatives, and H has been holding 45% of the shares of the defendant company at the second day of pleading of this case.

Therefore, the defendant, including 19,26,090 won, payable out of the price of goods at the above construction site B, and a copy of the complaint of this case from February 24, 2016 to the plaintiff.