A. On September 2014, Plaintiff Company subcontracted KRW 118,800,000 for the instant construction work among the new construction works located in Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. D around that time re-subcontracted the instant construction project from the Plaintiff Company.

C. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff Company supplied materials equivalent to KRW 16,367,560, in total, from September 4, 2014 to September 30, 2014, equivalent to KRW 5,868,720, from October 1, 2014 to October 24, 2014, and KRW 5,288,470, and KRW 5,210,370, in total, from November 3, 2014 to November 26, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure against the Plaintiff Company’s deposit claim with the right to preserve the supply of materials.

On March 18, 2015, the Busan District Court rendered a ruling of citing the defendant's application for provisional seizure.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, the statement No. 6-1 and No. 6-2, the response of October 5, 2016 and the purport of the whole pleadings of the court.

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiff company's assertion as to the cause of the principal claim is merely supplying D with materials required for the construction of this case or other construction works, and the plaintiff company did not receive materials from the defendant as stated in the attached materials supply statement in relation to the construction of this case. Thus, although there is no obligation for supply price stated in the attached materials supply statement to the defendant of the plaintiff company, it constitutes an intentional or negligent tort, and thus, it constitutes the plaintiff company's illegal provisional attachment of the deposit claim against the defendant of the plaintiff company as the debtor of the above price of supply. Thus, the plaintiff company paid the value-added tax that could have been paid in installments because it did not withdraw the amount equivalent to 6,00,000 won of bank deposit