1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2016, the Defendant accepted a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction works from C Co., Ltd. among the D new construction works in Masung City, and re-subcontracted the steel works among the aforementioned construction works to E on September 26, 2016, and re-subcontracted some construction works to F.

E unilaterally ceased construction during the construction process and did not appear at the construction site.

B. On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a decision on the seizure and assignment order of the claim (hereinafter “instant collection order”) against F to the amount up to KRW 32,985,922 out of the purchase price of H commercial building construction works by the Daegu District Court Decision 2017TG Kimcheon-gu 10933 based on an executory monetary loan agreement under Article 79 of G G 2017, as a notary public against F, the Plaintiff received a decision on May 26, 2017, on the basis of an executory monetary loan agreement under Article 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant subcontracted the remainder of the construction work to F and subcontracted the remainder to F after the Plaintiff E was at the construction site, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the construction price to F and the Plaintiff, a full creditor of the claim for the construction price against the Defendant.

B. The Defendant paid to Defendant E in excess of the construction cost under the subcontract agreement, and the construction contract was not concluded with F.

3. The testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as well as witness F is insufficient to recognize that a contract for construction was concluded between the defendant and F solely with the testimony of the defendant, or that F has a claim for payment from the defendant (the witness F testified that the contract for construction was not entered into separately with the defendant after the suspension of construction work in this court). There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.