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

A. On May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with the Defendant on the terms and conditions that the Plaintiff subcontracted the instant construction work for the supply of glass and construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among D construction works that the Plaintiff was contracted by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). From May 15, 2018 to July 31, 2018, the construction period was from May 15, 2018 to July 31, 2018; and the contract amount was KRW 38 million (including value-added tax).

The contract made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of the instant contract states that “The method of payment shall be 45 days after the settlement of accounts at the end of each month, and direct payment in C after the direct payment consent.”

B. On September 17, 2018, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 289,067,240, totaling KRW 265,494,240 of the instant construction cost and KRW 23,573,00 of the additional construction cost, with the Jeonju District Court Kim Jong-si, 2018, and on October 12, 2018, the payment order was finalized on September 20, 2018, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 289,067,240 with the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 28, 2018 to the date of full payment.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: C, the owner of the instant construction project, and C, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, agree to directly pay the construction cost of the instant case to the Defendant, the subcontractor, under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”); the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction cost of the instant case to the Defendant was extinguished; and the Defendant is only entitled to seek payment of the construction cost of the instant case only to C.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should be rejected.