1. Of the instant lawsuits, 40,387,340 won and damages for delay shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

A. On August 26, 2010, the Plaintiff received only KRW 2.6 billion loan, and on August 26, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 560 million, excluding the above KRW 2.6 billion, to the Defendant for the total construction cost of KRW 3.16 billion, and the above KRW 560 million was paid to dopco on the same day, and was again paid to the Plaintiff as construction cost.

From August 20, 201 to December 6, 2011, the Defendant paid dopco a total of KRW 3,476,00,000 (including value-added tax) for the construction cost, and dopco paid 3,33,000,000 to the Plaintiff from August 26, 2010 to November 12, 2010 (including the construction cost paid to the sub-subcontract in accordance with the direct non-payment agreement of the Plaintiff) for all the construction cost.

The details of the settlement agreement on completion of construction (A) contract amount (B) 3,160,00,000 PF loans (B) 2,600,000,000 (C) 74,340,380,000 additional costs (D) paid by the Plaintiff (=A-B-CD) 57,646,380) * The interest calculation of the loan amount * the interest calculation for the solar power plant of this case was completed on February 2, 2011 by the Defendant around February 2, 2011.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the court's inquiry into dopco, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On the grounds that ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the effect of the seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act prohibits the creditor and debtor of the seized claims from all acts of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc. of claims, and the State can collect on behalf of the defaulted taxpayer, the obligee, who is the defaulted taxpayer, is unable to exercise the seized claims, and is sentenced to Supreme Court Decision 8 March 1983.