1. The Defendant’s KRW 245,887,866 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from August 1, 2014 to November 20, 2015, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On November 26, 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract and a subcontract; the Defendant is deemed to have a house in consideration of a stock company on November 26, 2012.

(2) The construction project of the construction project of the new number of project investors on the ground and five lots of land, Daegu Suwon-gu Modern 1, 790-10, and 5 lots of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction project”).

As to the construction cost (including value-added tax) of KRW 8,77,830,00 (including value-added tax), the construction period from January 2, 2013 to September 2014; and the construction contract of KRW 1/1,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay the price of construction work once a month during the construction period from September 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”). The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to amend the construction period from September 1, 2013 to July 20, 2014, with respect to reinforced concrete and covering construction works (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

B. From October 23, 2013 to June 20, 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 989,897,504 of the subcontract price directly.

C. On May 30, 2014, the Korea Housing Corporation filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures under the title of 2014 Gohap106 with this court on May 30, 2014

On July 2, 2014, the court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures, but on October 6, 2014, rendered a decision to discontinue rehabilitation procedures on the grounds that the liquidation value of the house to be considered is higher than the continuous business value, and the above decision was finalized on October 21, 2014.

The Plaintiff’s claim for direct payment of subcontract consideration against the Defendant does not have the ability to pay the subcontract consideration to the Defendant by proving the content of July 30, 2014 and the content of August 4, 2014.