1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) The Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction between the Plaintiff and D, etc.) between D and D on November 18, 2013, and between D and D, the Plaintiff’s construction work of building on the ground of Ulsan-gu E (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

(2) After entering into a contract with D for construction cost of KRW 1.1 billion, the Plaintiff paid KRW 340 million out of the instant construction cost, but D paid part of the construction work, such as the base destruction work, and subsequently suspended construction work around May 2014.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for preservation of evidence with this Court 2014Kama548, and as a result, it was found that the part of the instant construction project D during the instant construction project was 25,498,000 won.

3) On July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D, as this Court Decision 2014Da17335, which sought unjust enrichment and compensation for delay equivalent to the difference between the construction cost paid by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and was sentenced to a judgment by public notice. B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. (i) Company F (hereinafter “F”) subcontracted the instant construction work on the first floor among the instant construction works, and did not receive KRW 180 million from D, but did not receive KRW 100,000,000 for the said construction work. The Plaintiff claimed a lien on the instant construction site by having a banner that is to exercise a container stuff, a passenger car, and a right of retention.

2) On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional disposition against the Defendant, who is the representative director of F and F, for the prohibition of interference with construction (as cited in October 7, 2014) under this Court 2014Kahap584, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an application with the Defendant for provisional disposition on the prohibition of interference with construction (as indicated in the foregoing notarial deed) (as indicated in the notarial deed, No. 377 of August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted with the Defendant a debt repayment agreement (as indicated in the notarial deed) with the effect that the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the construction price of KRW 40 million up to November 15, 2014 (as indicated in the notarial deed of this case).

4 In addition, the Plaintiff and F shall be the construction cost incurred at the construction site of this case on August 6, 2014.