1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2013, EM technology venture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SM technology venture”) contracted for the civil engineering works among the “C business facility construction works” undertaken by the Defendant in Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, with the contract amount of KRW 462 million, and continued construction works around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). B.

On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of claims against the Defendant of the non-party company based on the claim for the rent of construction machinery against the non-party company amounting to KRW 34,390,000,00. The above court accepted the Plaintiff’s application on February 26, 201 and decided provisional seizure of claims, and the above provisional seizure order is the same year.

3.3. Service was made to the Defendant.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Eastern District Court for the seizure and collection order of the claim against the non-party company based on the amount of 21,095,890 won under the Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2014Ma5363, and the same court applied for the seizure and collection order of the claim to transfer the provisional seizure indicated in the preceding paragraph to the original seizure. On February 5, 2015, the above court accepted the Plaintiff’s application and issued the seizure and collection order, and served the Defendant on the 9th day of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2-4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the payment for the completed portion under the contract of this case to the defendant of the non-party company within the scope of the claim amount of the above seizure and collection order.

B. On December 6, 2013, the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion: (a) paid the payment for the completed portion to the Nonparty Company KRW 170 million; and (b) agreed to terminate the instant contract with the Nonparty Company on January 6, 2014; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim is based on lives, B and B.