1. As of October 19, 2016, Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2016 tea 2876 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff contracted Nonparty D’s supply of a new urban-type residential housing construction project (hereinafter “instant new construction project”) to Nonparty D, Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu and three parcels of land (hereinafter “instant construction project”) and subcontracted the instant construction project cost to the Defendant by setting the construction cost of KRW 82,00,000,00,00.

B. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order by asserting that it had not received KRW 26,530,00 among the construction costs of the instant case, including additional construction works (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2016Hu2876), and that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of the instant case) shall pay KRW 26,530,000 to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of the instant case) and the damages for delay thereof,” was finalized on October 19, 2016 by the above court.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since D, the owner of the Plaintiff’s assertion, agreed that he directly pays the construction price of this case to the Defendant, under Article 14(2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”), the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction price of this case to the Defendant is extinguished, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that ① the Defendant’s assertion was forged, ② there was no direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the D third parties, and ③ there was no obligation to pay the new construction cost of the instant case against the Plaintiff extinguished by the direct payment obligation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the instant construction cost of the instant case against the Defendant was not recognized. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the instant construction cost was not extinguished.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, witness D and F's testimony and the whole purport of pleadings, the following: