1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include all the costs incurred by the participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Intervenor transferred KRW 35 million out of the unpaid construction cost claims under the contract entered into with the Plaintiff with respect to the construction of a new child care center on land E (hereinafter “new construction of this case”) outside Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, and the Plaintiff was notified on January 8, 2014, and reached the Plaintiff around that time.

B. The Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiff, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff the above bond acquisition amount of KRW 35 million, and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of full payment,” and the said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on February 28, 2014, and became final and conclusive on March 15, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant new construction was awarded to F, and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor was merely a field manager employed by F.

As such, the Defendant’s Intervenor, at the time of working at the said construction site under F, prepared the subcontract agreement in the name of the Defendant’s Intervenor on behalf of F under the F’s guarantee, but entered into an agreement on behalf of F.

Around August 2013, the Defendant Intervenor: (a) requested that the subcontractor of the instant new construction project enter into a contract with a person who is not a contractor in a case of unpaid construction cost; (b) falsely sent a written contract for the instant new construction project by facsimile; and (c) drafted and sent a written contract for the instant construction project by facsimile without any different meaning; and (d) the Defendant Intervenor transferred the aforementioned false claim to the Defendant.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of the payment order of this case based on the false contract should be rejected.

B. Considering the following circumstances, each of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is alone.