1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is issued on April 1, 2015 by the Daejeon District Court of Hongsung Branch Branch Budget Court of the Daejeon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2015, the Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff for the payment order with the Daejeon District Court of Hongsung Branch Branch Budget Court 2015 tea79 as follows, and the said court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2015.

The Defendant entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff on October 5, 2012 with respect to five parcels of land, other than Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and completed the construction work on November 5, 2012. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of KRW 7,000,000,000, which is part of the construction cost on June 26, 2013, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 23,00,000,000. As such, the Defendant claimed the remainder of the construction cost and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate with respect to 2/10 shares owned by the Plaintiff among 16,814 square meters of land C forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon District Court, Hongsung-gun, Daejeon District Court with the title of execution of the instant payment order. The said court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on June 16, 2015, and is currently underway the procedure for compulsory auction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not conclude a construction contract with the Defendant on five parcels, other than the land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

However, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the reclamation of the instant land to D. However, D, while performing the said reclamation work through the Defendant, discontinued without completion, and made a settlement agreement with the Plaintiff at KRW 10,000,000 on June 2013, 201.

The plaintiff paid KRW 7,00,000 in accordance with the above settlement agreement, and it cannot be deemed that there is a obligation to pay the construction price to the defendant who is not a party to the contract, and even if there is a obligation to pay the construction price to the defendant for domestic affairs, it shall not exceed KRW 3,00,000 out of the balance of the payment and the settlement agreement.

B. The defendant is the introduction of the defendant D.