1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operates the business of leasing heavy equipment with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant performed the construction work at the E-E construction site with the trade name of “D.”

B. From June 6, 2017 to June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for equipment leasing and waste disposal, etc. from the above construction site, and completed work equivalent to KRW 39,470,000 in total.

The Defendant’s remaining payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff is KRW 29,470,000.

(i) 39,470,000 won - 10,000,000

The Plaintiff, based on the judgment of the first instance court of the instant provisional execution sentence, filed an application for the attachment and collection order with Suwon District Court No. 2018TF as the title F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”). The F served with the delivery of the attachment and collection order on May 9, 2018, and paid KRW 25,830,000 to the Plaintiff on June 11, 2018.

On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff reported collection to the Suwon District Court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3-6, Eul evidence 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the payment of KRW 29,470,00 as the remaining price and damages for delay, the defendant asserts as follows.

After entering into a equipment rental contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant amounting to KRW 25,830,000, the Defendant agreed that F shall pay the construction price directly to the Plaintiff between F and F as the principal contractor for the construction work.

According to the agreement, F served the above seizure and collection order, and paid KRW 25,830,00 to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a receipt stating that “no claim remains due to the receipt of the construction cost.”

At the time of the above direct payment agreement, only KRW 4,300,000, which the defendant paid to the plaintiff, was paid to the plaintiff, and the remainder was the construction price of the third party introduced by the plaintiff.