The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant dismissed the application for compensation of this case.

1. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant is a person who actually operates E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and G.

H A. On August 22, 2011, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) awarded a contract for an I development project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) the total construction cost of which is equivalent to KRW 795 million from the J, which is equivalent to KRW 795 million. However, upon application by the Defendant’s employee, H cannot receive the construction cost from the Changwon District Court due to the attachment and assignment order for the claim for the construction cost (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) on September 23, 2011, due to the claim attachment and assignment order for the claim for the construction cost, which was made at the Changwon District Court J, the Defendant’s employee. Therefore, even if a subcontract contract related to the said development project was concluded under the name of H, H did not have any intent or ability to pay the construction cost.

On January 25, 2012, the Defendant made a contract under the name of the victim and H (hereinafter “instant contract”) after concluding a contract under the name of the victim and doing so from January 25, 2012 to January 25, 2012, stating to the victim D that the instant assignment order was made by the H representative L (N around April 2012) with respect to the conclusion of the instant contract for construction, the Defendant would pay KRW 162 million to the victim D for the construction cost of the instant construction project ordered by Hayang-gun, if any problem arises with respect to the portion of the construction cost later, during the instant construction project ordered by Hayang-gun.”

8. Even though he had had someone carry out a construction work until October 20, he did not pay KRW 67 million out of the construction amount.

However, H is unable to receive the construction cost from the Development Group due to the above circumstances, and there was no intent or ability to pay the construction cost to the victim, as well as the financial standing of the defendant has deteriorated, and thus, the construction cost has also been paid to the victim.