1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the plaintiff's lawsuit, 158,141,052 won and its related amount on July 19, 2014.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the statement of the first instance court's decision, except for the part written by Paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation of this case is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The revised portion of the first instance court’s decision is 9,100 square meters at the bottom of 3 pages of the first instance court’s decision to “Scomford Construction Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “Scomford Construction”).

The term "unpaid" at the bottom of the three sides of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to " unpaid".

The 3rd sentence of the first instance court's 4th sentence shall be "Seo Construction Co., Ltd.", and the 9th sentence of the same 9th sentence shall be amended to "Seodae Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd.," respectively.

The following shall be added between the fourth and fourth parallels at the bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the same page [based grounds for recognition] shall be added to "A or 1" respectively.

A person shall be appointed.

G. Meanwhile, on July 15, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Gahap394, the Intervenor was issued a seizure and collection order on the amount of the above claim among the claims for the price of the goods claimed by the Plaintiff as KRW 158,141,052, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Gahap394, the Defendant was served on the Defendant on July 18, 2014. The above order was served on the Defendant on July 18, 2014.

“The payment was to be made” on five pages 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance. “The Plaintiff, while filing the instant lawsuit, consented to the assumption of the Defendant’s obligation.” The following is added between the 8th and nine at the bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance.

C. The intervenor asserted that the plaintiff received a claim seizure and collection order against KRW 158,141,052 out of the price of the goods of this case that the plaintiff should receive from the defendant, and therefore the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 158,141,052 to the intervenor who is the collection right holder and the delay damages.

Court decisions of the first instance.