1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2016, the Defendant, as a contractor, entered into a contract with a non-party company C (hereinafter “non-party company”) on the condition that the contractor shall be the contractor for the construction work of the non-party company D and three parcels of land (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) with the 369,800,000 won.

B. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant paid 180,000,000 won to Nonparty Company as advance payment, and paid 80,000,000 won on April 11, 2016.

C. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant additionally paid KRW 100 million to the non-party company as the construction price. On June 1, 2016, the Defendant and the non-party company drafted a written confirmation of payment of the construction price that confirms the remainder of the construction price as KRW 1.2 million.

On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) as to KRW 30 million, out of the instant construction cost claim against the Defendant of the non-party company, as the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2016TTTT3897, and the instant collection order reaches the Defendant on June 24, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that "the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff according to the collection order of this case." On June 1, 2016, the defendant paid all the amount of the original construction payment to the non-party company on June 1, 2016, and thereafter the non-party company discontinued the construction, so there is no construction payment to the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff'

It argues that “the” is “the case.

3. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (the instant collection order) with respect to the claim for the construction price of this case on June 22, 2016, and the fact that the collection order of this case reached the Defendant around that time is based on the foregoing facts.

(b).