1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 22, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with executory power over service costs in Seosan District Court Decision 2016Gadan8277, the Plaintiff was subject to the attachment and collection order against the third obligor of the obligor Red Profit Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “red red Profit Construction”) (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the obligor Red Profit Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Chin Construction”), on May 2, 2017.

B. The above decision was served on the Defendant on May 25, 2017.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination

A. The main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that construction was executed by subcontracting part of the construction works for the construction of the Seosan Yang apartment built by the Defendant, and the instant deposit amounting to 10% of the construction cost was deposited with the Defendant during that process. As such, the Defendant should return the said deposit to the Red Profit Construction.

However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff received a decision to collect the above deposit, it is obligated to pay the deposit and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff, who is the person holding the right to collect the deposit.

B. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of the instant deposit refund claim against the Defendant of Red Hyk Construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.