1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, there is no dispute between the parties, or according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, the Plaintiff, the creditor of the construction contract against C, as to the claim for the construction price that C holds against the Defendant, the contractor of the construction contract, as Seoul Western District Court 2014Kadan30160, April 1

5. 12. Around August 18, 2015, the Defendant was served, and thereafter, on August 18, 2015, the Seoul Western District Court requested a collection order to transfer the provisional seizure to the original seizure under the Seoul Western District Court 2015TT1090.

9. 8. Upon receipt of the collection order on October 27, 100, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the collection order has been delivered to the Defendant, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the payment of construction cost was remitted KRW 830,000,000 from June 18, 2013 to December 27, 2013.

Based on the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff asserted that, insofar as the Plaintiff did not prove the fact that the Defendant had satisfied all obligations with material that could objectively reliable in the course of seeking the payment of the collection amount to the Defendant, the Plaintiff could not believe the receipts dated October 10, 2013 and the receipts dated October 16, 2013, which were written out to the effect that it would be difficult to believe, and thus, the Plaintiff should pay KRW 40.8 million as stated in the receipts, and even if the Defendant had fully repaid the obligations, it is deemed that the Defendant would have been discharged after receiving the Plaintiff’s provisional seizure order.

In this regard, the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), which is not C; (b) and (c) paid all the construction cost by paying KRW 830 million only to the bank account until December 2013, 2013.

In principle, the defense of performance, which is the fact of extinguishment of right, bears the burden of proof of the defense.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant entered into a contract with C and bears the obligation for the construction cost to C (the Plaintiff is merely asserting that the actual party is C because it entered into a contract under the name of C who has no comprehensive construction license).