1. The compulsory execution based on the payment order issued by Suwon District Court 2016 tea 1974 against the Plaintiff by the Defendant is KRW 42,30,000 and KRW 42,300.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 2015, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction to the Plaintiff and completed the instant construction work under a subcontract with the Plaintiff during the construction project in Pyeongtaek-si C located in Pyeongtaek-si B (hereinafter “instant construction”).

However, since August 1, 2015 to November 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a tax invoice for the total amount of KRW 44,979,000 to the Plaintiff from August 1, 2015 to November 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff transferred the said construction payment to D’s account.

B. Around August 2015, the Defendant subcontracted the instant supplementary construction project by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant additional construction”) and performed the instant additional construction project by January 2016. On April 20, 2016, the Defendant issued a tax invoice in the name of D for KRW 50,886,000 for the additional construction cost to the Plaintiff.

C. On July 14, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff with the Suwon District Court for payment at the rate of KRW 50,886,00 per annum from July 30, 2016 to the date of full payment, and KRW 15 per annum from July 30, 2016 to the date of full payment. The Defendant received a payment order from the above court on July 26, 2016, and the said payment order was finalized on August 13, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s 1 through 3, Eul’s 1 and 2 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. (1) The fact that a tax invoice in the name of D was issued on the instant construction cost and additional construction cost, and the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the instant construction cost to the account of D is as seen earlier.

(2) On the other hand, however, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted earlier, i.e., D, upon the request of the Defendant, issued a tax invoice in the name of the Defendant at the request of the Defendant, and the construction price is the principal’s passbook.