1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2014, the Defendant awarded a contract for the new construction of C commercial housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the Mapo Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mama Industry”) on the terms of October 2014, 201 as follows: (a) KRW 432 million; and (b) the completion date of the new construction of C commercial housing (hereinafter “the instant construction”).

B. On April 22, 2014, the Mapo Industry commenced the instant construction project and obtained approval for use on June 3, 2015.

C. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of a notarial deed with the executory power under Article 168 of the 2015 Deed No. 168, the Plaintiff, a notary public, seized the amount of KRW 260,309,200 (=the amount of enforcement bond amount of KRW 260,00,000, KRW 309,200) after excluding the amount prohibited from seizure under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, out of the construction price claims to be paid by the Defendant after the completion of the instant construction work, was issued an attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant attachment and assignment order”) with the content that “The Plaintiff prohibited the payment to the third obligor and ordered the Plaintiff to complete the said claim (hereinafter “instant seizure and assignment order”).

On April 20, 2015, the instant attachment and assignment order was served on the Defendant and became final and conclusive on May 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Mapo Industry has a claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 432,00,000 against the Defendant in accordance with the instant construction contract. Of the above construction cost claims, the attachment and assignment order of this case was issued regarding the amount up to KRW 260,309,200 among the above construction cost claims, which was served on the Defendant, and as such, the claim for construction cost against the Defendant in the Mapo Industry was entirely paid to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 260,309,200 and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant.