1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On October 25, 2010, in order to establish solar power plants on the Republic of Korea, the Defendant agreed to pay the price by designating supervision services from 100 million won (excluding value-added tax) and from 25 October 25, 2012 to 30 August 20, 2013 for the period of time from 10 million to 10 million won (excluding value-added tax) and from 25 October 2012 to 123, the Defendant agreed to pay the price as follows.

(The above supervision service contract is referred to as the “instant contract”). Within 14 days after the completion of the last 10% of the contract amount of the 50% of the contract amount of the non-fixed advance payment due to the installment payment, 30% after the second month after the contract, and 10% of the contract amount of the 10% of the completion payment after the second month after the completion of the contract.

B. On April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) on the part of KRW 60,203,140, out of the purchase price claims under the instant contract against the Defendant under the Prior River as the Gwangju District Court 2013TTT 5547, based on an executory notarial deed. The said collection order was served on the Defendant on April 8, 2013.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Regarding the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the collection amount under the instant collection order, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant repaid the debt subject to the collection prior to the issuance of the above collection order, and according to the evidence No. 2, the Defendant, according to the evidence No. 2, remitted the amount of KRW 10,100,000 to the Han River on March 29, 2013.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff did not consistently assert the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of remittance of KRW 110,000,000, and the time of remittance of the said money does not coincide with the time of payment as stipulated in the instant contract, as well as the time when the advance payment was made for more than five months on August 30, 2013 when the advance payment was made to provide supervision services. In light of the above, the said money is not a debt under the instant contract, but a repayment of other debt owed by the Defendant to the advance payment.