1.It is denied that the compulsory execution based on the payment order issued on June 9, 2016, Korea District Court Order 2016 tea3747 against the plaintiff of the defendant.

2...

Basic Facts

On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction and completed the construction works, on which the construction period was fixed from October 28, 2013 to July 30, 2014 and the construction cost was KRW 1.781,00,000 (Additional Tax Exemption) for the construction work (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction work”) on the land outside E in Gangseo-si, Gangwon-si, and two parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C completed the instant construction by subcontracting the instant construction to F and G, etc., and obtained approval for the use of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) on December 14, 2015.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for payment in kind from August 2015 to November 2015, 2015, paid a total of KRW 814 billion to F and G, a subcontractor of C and C.

The creditor C has been legally sold to three households of 101, 102, 103, 103, 101, 102, and 103, as the case of the construction cost payment for the new house construction work newly built on the H of Gangseo-si, Gangwon-do, but if the owner does not transfer this to another person, and if the plaintiff can substitute it with cash for the above case, he/she again agrees to return the above three households.

However, if the owner fails to comply with it for a certain period, the plaintiff will implement the ownership transfer procedure.

In addition, when the plaintiff, G, F, etc. have incurred a loan from the bank sphere and the construction cost is approved, it shall be actively supported accordingly.

On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with C to pay the construction price in kind (hereinafter “instant accord and satisfaction agreement”) with C and the instant building Nos. 101, 102, and 103 (hereinafter “each of the instant households”), and drafted the following agreements:

Accordingly, the plaintiff is the defendant who is the actual father of C on the same day, and each of the households of this case is under the name of I.