1. The Defendant’s Yangsan District Court Yangsan-si Court 2015 tea1088 has an executory power against the Plaintiff.

1. The facts following the premise of the determination are acknowledged as either the dispute or the purport of the entire pleadings, in addition to each macro- documentary evidence.

The Plaintiff: (a) subcontracted the construction of machinery and equipment among the “construction works for exclusive parking buildings for Ulsan-gu E Hospital in Ulsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City E Hospital in D”; (b) on February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that “fire-fighting construction works” during the said construction works are KRW 190 million (including additional duties, the Defendant separate from additional duties, and the total construction cost is KRW 290 million), but there is no evidence supporting that F normally issued the tax invoice to the Plaintiff during the taxable period; (c) the Plaintiff was not subject to the input tax deduction; and (d) the F is deemed to have actually discontinued as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case; and (e) in the instant case, it cannot be settled by including the additional tax in the construction cost. The Defendant’s assertion contrary thereto is rejected).

[A] The Plaintiff paid F, ① KRW 10 million on November 5, 2014, ② KRW 200,000 on December 17, 2014, ③ KRW 37.2 million on January 2, 2015, respectively.

[A] From the agreed construction cost, 150 million won (=190 million won - 37.2 million won) remains if the agreed construction cost is deducted.

On January 14, 2015, F transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff on the same day, and served the Plaintiff on January 15, 2015.

[A] 4 and B 3] The Plaintiff paid KRW 7 million to G who worked as a field manager of F on January 15, 2015.

[A] On the other hand, on February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff and F drafted a statement of direct payment of the construction cost as follows:

[A] According to the above direct non-performance agreement, FH A Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million in terms of personnel expenses for re-employment to G on the same day, and ② KRW 50 million in terms of material price to the Defendant who supplied materials to F.

[A] 10-2, 11-4, witness G] The defendant recognized that he was paid the above KRW 50 million as part of the acquisition price.

[Judgment of June 12, 2017] F. F is March 2015.