1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The warranty bond of KRW 27,744,00 or the same amount as the Plaintiff’s.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff on February 12, 2015, set the construction cost of the electrical construction among the construction works in the Army Pyeong, Yangju’s official residence, and the military camp facilities BTL (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”) at KRW 924,80,000, and the construction period from February 12, 2015 to October 18, 2015.

B. On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff suspended the instant electrical construction under the status of 98% on the base rate of the construction period.

C. The Defendant paid 766,960,000 won to the Plaintiff as the instant electrical construction price.

A) On February 29, 2016, A received the order of seizure and collection as to KRW 3,953,81 of the instant electrical construction price claim against the Defendant from the Plaintiff on February 29, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 2016TTTT 2016TT 1957), and the above order was served on the Defendant on August 12, 2016 (2) B), as to KRW 29,650,572 of the instant electrical construction price claim against the Plaintiff against the Defendant on August 12, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 2016TT 20174), and the above order was served on the Defendant on business.

3) On October 11, 2016, Sangdo Electric Co., Ltd. received a decision of seizure and collection order for the transfer of provisional seizure of KRW 48,421,03 among the claims against the Plaintiff for the instant electrical construction proceeds against the Defendant as to KRW 48,421,03 (Case No. 2016, Incheon District Court Branch Branch Office No. 2016, No. 8813), and the above decision was served on the Defendant. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1 through 7, and Eul’s evidence No. 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent the care work cost due to the delay in the preceding construction of the instant electrical construction among the instant electrical construction design, and paid the additional construction cost due to the modification of the design of the instant electrical construction.

Therefore, the defendant is subject to the decision of seizure and collection order among the construction costs not paid to the plaintiff 82,025,416.