1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) determined the construction cost of the 5,500,000,000,000 Busan Shipping Daegu and C D Hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel construction”); and (b) determined the construction cost of the 1,320,00,000,000 each of the instant main complex construction works located B (hereinafter “instant main complex construction”) in the Dau Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mau Construction”); and (c) concluded a contract for each of the instant main complex construction works at KRW 1,320,00.

B. On October 30, 2013, 199, Dak Construction: (a) decided the construction cost of fire-fighting facility works among the main complex works in the instant case at KRW 114,840,000 among the main complex works; and (b) decided the construction cost of fire-fighting facility works among the hotel works in the instant case at KRW 94,930,000; and (c) awarded a subcontract for each of the instant projects at KRW 94,930,000.

C. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order regarding “67,197,493 won out of the unpaid construction price under a direct payment agreement and other subcontract price based on the executory judgment of the case in which the claim for the purchase price of goods was filed by the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu 2014Kadan14357 against Sungwon-si, the Defendant, as the obligor, and the Defendant, as the third obligor, as the obligor, issued a seizure and collection order regarding “67,197,493 won out of the construction price due to the direct payment agreement for the Sungwon-won-si and the other subcontract price.” The above order was served on the Defendant on December 13, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has concluded a direct fire-fighting facility work with the Sungwon company or agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the Sungwon company. Thus, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff, a collection creditor of the claim for the construction price against the defendant of Sungwon company, the payment of the contract price to the defendant and the delay damages therefor.

B. First of all, the Defendant’s assertion that he/she entered into a fire-fighting facility contract directly with the Sungwon Company.