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

A. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E.S. E.D. (hereinafter “E.D.”) for supply of building materials, such as joint plates, temporary materials, iron, tools, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract”).

Article 6 of the instant contract provides, “The rights to goods supplied in the event of a default on the price of goods may be exercised with the Plaintiff and rights (the recovery of goods and the exercise of rights to possession).”

B. On December 2014, the Defendant concluded a subcontract with respect to reinforced concrete construction among E.S. construction and new construction works of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, and with respect to the construction works of reinforced concrete among construction works of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, on June 2015 (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in KRW 89,163,100 of the unpaid claim for the amount of goods E.S. purchase, and the Plaintiff has the right to the goods supplied corresponding to the amount of the above claim pursuant to Article 6 of the instant contract.

However, since the goods worth KRW 25,000,000 are used at the construction site of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 25,000,000 as the price for the goods.

The instant contract was concluded in preference to each of the instant subcontract agreements on the instant construction works between the Defendant and EsP case, and the Plaintiff’s right under Article 6 of the instant contract takes precedence over the Defendant’s right under each of the said subcontract agreements.

However, the defendant also claims 19,823,021 won and damages for delay, taking into account the damages incurred during the instant construction, the loss ratio of the goods, etc.

B. According to the above facts of the judgment, the contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and Essto case, and the defendant is the party to the contract of this case.