1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant rendered Cheongju District Court Decision Cheongju Branch Decision 1 May 1, 2019.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On May 1, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Cheongju District Court Decision 2019Da20507, and rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 89,022,931 and its delay damages,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On June 20, 2019, the Defendant: (a) made the instant judgment against C as the executive title; and (b) made the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to the steel beamline listed in the attached Table 1 List No. 4 on the D’s ground (hereinafter “Attachment 1”).

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 8, 10, 14, and 18 (including each number if there are serial numbers) and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) Around January 2017, C entered into a contract with the Defendant to obtain a contract for the construction of D ground factory from the Defendant in the Chungcheongbuk-si. 2) C around August 2017, upon receipt of a written estimate (Evidence A2) from the Plaintiff, and then subcontracted the steel framed among the construction of the said factory to the Plaintiff.

3) On August 30, 2017, the Plaintiff ordered and supplied the steel beam beam to G Co., Ltd. for the said steel frame construction. This corresponds most to the size and quantity of the sloping beam as indicated in the said quotation. DA4) The Plaintiff, who was supplied by G Co., Ltd., was engaged in processing, such as cutting and painting, with respect to the above s beam beamline, which was supplied by G Co., Ltd., and was partially transported to the construction site of the said new factory on January 31, 2018.

5. On the other hand, C was unable to carry out the construction work of the above factory, and the contract was rescinded by the Defendant and lost by filing a suit for the claim for the return of the construction cost as seen earlier, at the construction site of the above factory.