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

A. On June 20, 2012, the Defendant contracted the instant construction works for one parcel outside B (hereinafter “instant construction works”) to the 795,000,000 won for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax) and the scheduled completion date for the completion of the construction works on December 31, 2012.

B. On October 9, 2012, the construction of the KND transferred the contractor’s status as to the said construction to the Defendant’s Sung Total Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SND”) upon preparing and submitting a letter of waiver of construction.

C. After doing so, the Defendant and the Ssung General Steel concluded a construction contract, setting the completion date of the instant construction project as June 26, 2013, and as the construction contract amounting to KRW 800,000,000 (excluding value added tax) for the instant construction project, and the contract date was formulated retroactively on June 26, 2012.

The Defendant remitted total of KRW 148,00,000 to the Ssung Steel Co., Ltd. from October 31, 2012 to May 13, 2013 as progress payment.

E. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant sent a written notice of termination of the construction contract to the Seongbuk Total Steel Co., Ltd., and its main content was that “The construction is required to be added to the retaining wall status as of the present time due to the lack of construction work according to the drawing, the claim for payment for completed portion did not state the normal procedure and details, and the settlement statement is also unclear.”

F. Although the Defendant applied for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 278,965,846 of the remainder amount of the construction work against the Defendant (U.S. District Court Decision 2013 tea2908, U.S. Supreme Court Decision 2013Da2908, Sept. 16, 2013), the decision was finalized as it is.

G. On October 30, 2013, the Sung-min Steel Co., Ltd. concluded a contract on the assignment of claims with the purport of transferring KRW 29.5 million (hereinafter “transfer claim of this case”) out of the remainder of the construction payment against the Defendant to the Plaintiff, who worked as a tree at the construction site of this case.

H. On December 16, 2013, the Steel General Steel Co., Ltd. notified the Defendant of the assignment of the above claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.