1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,371,001 as well as 5% per annum from March 16, 2017 to April 18, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The construction contract relationship 1) The construction of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office from the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant construction”).

2) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “joint contractors”) that jointly received a supply of and demand for Do comprehensive construction

(2) The Plaintiff agreed to pay the construction cost under the above subcontract to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, respectively, in the amount of KRW 536,80,000,000, which is the 694,650,000, to the Defendant, among the instant construction works. The Republic of Korea agreed to pay the construction cost under the above subcontract directly to the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The Plaintiff completed the subcontracted packing construction (hereinafter “instant packing construction”) around March 28, 201.

B. 1) The Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, spent KRW 172,616,50 as personnel expenses, etc. for the packing work of this case. Since the Plaintiff spent KRW 5,189,091 as expenses for repairing defects for the packing work of this case, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should have paid or returned the amount of KRW 177,805,591 in total as expenses for managing affairs or unjust enrichment. On November 15, 2011, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for provisional attachment against the Plaintiff with the amount of KRW 134,375,240 in the amount of claim KRW 134,375,240 in the Gwangju District Court Decision 200, Nov. 23, 201 of this year for provisional attachment against the remainder of the packing work of this case. Accordingly, on June 8, 2012, Korea deposited the amount of KRW 134,375,391 in the Seoul District Court for the same reason.

6.18. A decision of provisional seizure made on the same year.

6. 20. Service was made to Dondo-gun.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is the plaintiff.