1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 107,80,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 15% per annum from October 3, 2018 to May 31, 2019; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (i) Around May 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor during the period from April 7, 2016 to May 27, 2016 by setting the contract amount of KRW 1,650,00,000 (including value-added tax) for a new model house construction project on the D ground at the original city, and the construction period from April 7, 2016 to May 27, 2016.

The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor received construction cost of KRW 817,00,000 from May 4, 2016 to October 27, 2016 from Defendant or E Company.

【Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor completed the model house.

Applicant on July 31, 2018, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor transferred KRW 107,800,000 to the Plaintiff out of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost against the Defendant.

(v) the assignment of a credit above reaches the Defendant on August 10, 2018.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 107,800,000, out of the construction price obligations.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. (1) The defendant asserts that the contract of this case exists a special agreement prohibiting the transfer of the claim for construction price.

Where a third party takes over a claim from a creditor, the obligor may set up against the assignee who knows the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claim, or any assignee who was grossly negligent when he/she was unaware of the existence of such special agreement.

The bad faith or gross negligence of a third party shall be asserted and proved by a person who intends to oppose the transferee by a special contract prohibiting the assignment of claims.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8310 Decided May 13, 2010). Unlike the Defendant’s assertion, even if there exists a special agreement on the prohibition of the transfer of claims in the instant contract, the Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiff was grossly negligent because the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the transfer of claims. Therefore, the aforementioned assertion is without merit

B. (i) Whether the provisional seizure claim is valid, the defendant shall seize the claim prior to the assignment of the claim in this case.