1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

- On December 4, 2015, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment that the Defendant would pay KRW 92,000,000 and damages for delay to the Plaintiff (No. 2015dan28622) on the grounds that the Suwon District Court’s Sung-nam branch rendered a decision that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 92,00,000 and the damages for delay to the company (hereinafter “stock company”). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

- The Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order against KRW 9,49,646, out of the construction price claims in Seongbuk-gu E Commercial Housing Construction Corporation, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, for a seizure and collection order against the Defendants, based on the above judgment amount claim against 199,49,646, and on January 15, 2016, Sungnam Branch Branch of Suwon District Court attached the claims for construction price of the instant E commercial housing to the Defendants of 10, 2016, 2016, 373, and decided to attach the claims against the Defendants of 19,49,646, and the said decision reached the Defendants until January 20, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings against the defendants, based on the decision of seizure and collection order of the above claim against the defendants, and sought payment of the same collection amount as that stated in the purport of the claim against the defendants. The defendants asserted that the parties who entered into the above E commercial housing construction contract with the defendants are F, and therefore, they did not have a claim for construction cost of Matri Construction against the defendants, which

Judgment

The statement of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 9 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) is insufficient to recognize that the construction of social gathering is a party to the above E commercial housing construction contract between the defendants and the defendants, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a claim for the construction cost of the above E commercial housing. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit without further review.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the defendants' houses for E commercial buildings as of November 2015.