1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant is from October 7, 2010 to KRW 36,719,013 to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for this part of the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay to the debtor company KRW 1,151,312,155 out of the construction cost of KRW 3,257,376,00 according to the instant construction contract. The defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the debtor company KRW 36,719,013 of the construction cost not paid to the debtor company according to the instant collection order and the delay damages therefrom.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay the construction price to the debtor company.

3. Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the Defendant has the obligation to pay the construction price to the obligor company.

However, according to the purport of the evidence No. 4 and the whole pleadings, the above claim subject to the seizure and collection order is the construction cost (including claims such as settlement money) held by the debtor company against the defendant in relation to the contract of this case. It is recognized that the judgment rendered a judgment on the claim for damages related to the contract of this case between the debtor company and the defendant (Seoul High Court 2013Na6792, 6801) as the defendant's share of union members, relocation expenses, repayment of outside voting expenses, construction expenses at the time of outside voting, interest deposit, and other liability for damages, etc., and "the defendant paid 608,374,682 won to the debtor company and the amount equivalent to 60% per annum from June 22, 2013 to January 27, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment."

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, the collection obligee, and the collection obligee, 36,719,013 won under the collection order of this case, within the scope of the above judgment amount, and the plaintiff, the collection obligee, as the next day of Oct. 7, 2010 to the day of complete payment, etc.