1. As to KRW 76,00,000, which was deposited by the Seoul Southern District Court No. 1357 on March 21, 2016 by B, Seoul Southern District Court on March 21, 2016

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for Criart’s repair work at KRW 158,000,000 for the construction cost, and for Criart typhoon’s typhoon’s damage restoration work at KRW 116,00,00 for each contract with B (hereinafter “B”).

B. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff subcontracted the construction cost of KRW 179,300,000 to D (representative E) for each of the above construction works.

C. B paid, on November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff the progress payment of KRW 81 million for the guest room repair work, KRW 70 million for the typhoon restoration work, respectively, and paid, on January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the progress payment of KRW 28 million for the purpose of resolving the wages in arrears of F, which is the Plaintiff’s sewage supplier, to settle the wages in arrears.

On the other hand, on January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 55,820,000 as the remainder of the construction cost of each of the above subcontracting with the depositer E in gold No. 104, 2016.

B on March 22, 2016, the Seoul Southern District Court deposited the amount of KRW 76,000,000 for each of the above construction costs (27,000,000 for the completion of the typhoon restoration work in the passenger room construction work in the amount of KRW 49,00,000 for the completion of the typhoon restoration work in the amount of KRW 27,00,000) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the depositee (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is the plaintiff and the party who received the above construction contract from B, and that the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case, which is the progress payment for each of the above construction works, is the plaintiff, and the defendant asserts that the defendant has the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case, since he directly performed the construction work after being awarded the above construction contract

B. The following circumstances, i.e., no construction contract concluded between the Defendant and B, and the Defendant and each of the above construction works, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts, the evidence adopted earlier, and evidence Nos. 12 through 24.