1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the owner of a newly built multi-household house in Gwangju City, and the plaintiff is the stone constructor.

B. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that “If the Defendant first performs the construction of multi-household housing stones at his/her own expense, the Plaintiff shall pay 1 bonds after completion of the building as a substitute and settle accounts among them.”

Since then, the Plaintiff agreed to construct stone, and the original Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff’s stone construction cost of KRW 40 million.

C. On August 8, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 27, 2013, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the above multi-household 302 in the Defendant’s future.

At the time of the registration of ownership transfer, the registration of provisional attachment as of November 12, 2013 in the name of D, the claim amount of which was 100 million won, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on August 27, 2013 in the name of Sungnam-do Saemaul Savings Depository (the actual debt amount of KRW 86 million), which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 111,18 million (the actual debt amount of KRW 86 million), respectively, was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion on February 15, 2013, the original Defendant agreed to settle the accounts on the basis of the cost of construction on the one debt that the Plaintiff would receive as a substitute. The construction cost of KRW 302 was determined as KRW 19.2 million.

Therefore, the amount acquired by the Plaintiff through the transfer of ownership by 302 (i.e., KRW 19.2 million (i.e., KRW 302 million - KRW 86.2 million - provisional seizure amounting to KRW 14.28 million, including KRW 302,00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000) is not limited to KRW 1,428,00 if distributed

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff additional KRW 31 million (=the Plaintiff’s stone construction cost of KRW 40 million - 8920,000).

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of determination is premised on the agreement to calculate and calculate 302 construction cost as construction cost, and seems to correspond thereto.