1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2007, the Defendant received a subcontract for part of the Newly constructed construction work from the Hyundai item, which was awarded a contract for the construction work that is a factory assembly of the U.S. corporation for the Abandoned Motor. The Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant on January 30, 2008. The Plaintiff received a subcontract for part of the Newly constructed construction work which was subcontracted by the Defendant.

(B) The above sub-subcontract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is called the “instant contract,” and the contract prepared at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract is called the “instant contract”).

On September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. seeking payment of the amount verified in the trial (hereinafter “instant execution suit”) by asserting that the Defendant did not pay the amount under the instant contract even though the Plaintiff fulfilled its obligations under Article 10-A-07497-7 of the case number of the Choju-si court of the instant case (hereinafter “instant execution suit”).

C. The Defendant appointed a U.S. legal entity as a legal representative after receiving a complaint of the instant suit subject to the enforcement of the instant case from the Suwon District Court was rendered a ruling of mutual assistance by the competent court, and issued a prior defense on the merits that the instant suit subject to the enforcement of the instant case should be dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, the choice of competent court Article 22 of the instant contract agreement, and the convenient court. However, the prior defense on the merits was not accepted.

As the defendant's prior defense prior to the merits was not accepted, the U.S. law firm, the defendant's legal representative, resigned from the status of legal representative, and the defendant did not respond to the lawsuit subject to execution of this case.

E. On June 9, 201, the instant Choi-ju court did not appoint an attorney regarding the instant suit subject to enforcement, and submitted an rebuttal on the Plaintiff’s claim.