The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with Jeju District Court 2018 A group 10042 against E (hereinafter “E”).

During the proceedings, on June 3, 2020 between the Plaintiff and E, E was established a ruling of recommending reconciliation that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 4,00,000,000, out of the delayed damages from October 17, 2018, to June 30, 2020.

Meanwhile, at the time of Jeju, the Defendant concluded a contract with E for the construction cost of KRW 4,110,00,000 among the construction works for the new construction of the G building in Japan, from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018, and changed the construction cost of KRW 1,447,350,000 (including value added taxes) around April 30, 2018, and the construction period from January 1, 2018 to May 10, 2018.

On November 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of the claim for construction price against the Defendant for the provisional seizure against Jeju District Court 2018 Ma 11340, and the above court accepted the provisional seizure and rendered a provisional seizure order on November 22, 2018. The above provisional seizure order was served on the Defendant on November 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure order”). The Plaintiff received the provisional seizure and collection order on July 20, 2020 from Jeju District Court 2020, and transferred the above provisional seizure to the Defendant as the provisional seizure order.

On July 23, 2020, the above ruling was served on the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the whole argument and purport of the parties concerned as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, and the purport of the whole argument, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction price to Eul to the Plaintiff, who

The defendant's assertion that the provisional attachment order of this case was already paid to E before the provisional attachment order of this case was served, and thus the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.

Judgment

In full view of the above evidence and the evidence in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including branch numbers), the defendant shall include the value added tax (including value added tax) around April 30, 2018, in the whole purport of the pleadings.