1. On February 3, 2016, the Defendant’s Cheongju District Court Cheongju District Court 2016Gau469 claim for the purchase of goods against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C for the construction of multi-family housing, etc. on D and E (hereinafter “instant construction”) for KRW 1,579,00,000 for the construction cost (hereinafter “instant contract”), and C subcontracted part of the instant construction work to F on August 10, 2015, and F was supplied to the Defendant KRW 11,208,065 for the subcontracted construction work by August 31, 2015.

B. On January 26, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the price for the goods supplied for the instant construction project. On February 3, 2016, Cheongju District Court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to the effect that payment of KRW 6,208,065, which the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff as the Cheongju District Court Decision No. 2016 Ghana469, Feb. 3, 2016. The said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on March 3, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), witness F's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is merely liable for the construction cost arising from the contract of this case to C, and the defendant can seek payment of the goods against F, and otherwise, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a title to seek payment of the goods directly to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case shall not be permitted.

B. The Defendant asserts that, around August 2015, the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion: (a) around 2015, G agreed to deliver goods to the Plaintiff’s agent C and F in the instant construction site; and (b) C and F were to issue a tax invoice in the Plaintiff’s name; (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the goods supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff

l.p. g., p.