1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,327,668 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 9, 2014 to July 17, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant awarded a contract for reinforced concrete construction (contract amounting to KRW 2.31 billion) and soil and appurtenant construction (contract amounting to KRW 1.785 million) during the construction of the same industry (hereinafter “Dong industry”) to the same industry.

B. The Plaintiff supplied materials necessary for the foregoing construction to the same industry, and received a provisional attachment decision (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Kadan70820) regarding the claim for the construction price against the Defendant of the same industry with the claim for the above material price in the same industry as the preserved claim, and the decision was served on the Defendant on July 26, 2013.

C. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to claim the cost of materials (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Gahap105244) and received a favorable judgment, and filed an application for a seizure and collection order, etc. to which the above provisional seizure is transferred to the defendant of the same industry based on the above judgment, and rendered a decision that "a claim for construction cost of KRW 150,259,226 against the defendant of the same industry is seized and collected" (Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2014 TaTa119, Jan. 8, 2014). The decision was served on the defendant on January 8, 2014.

On October 23, 2013, the Defendant concluded settlement agreements on the above construction works, and agreed to settle the accounts of KRW 2,185,047,00 for reinforced concrete construction works, and for soil and appurtenant construction works, KRW 1,203,60,00 for soil and appurtenant works.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 3-1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff claims the collection amount based on the above seizure and collection order, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the defendant has already paid all the construction price to the same reporting industry at the time of receipt of the above provisional seizure order.

B. According to Gap evidence No. 3-2, the defendant terminated a contract on the construction of reinforced concrete among the above construction works on August 9, 2013, and 22,327,668 out of the settlement amount of KRW 2,185,047,00,000 for provisional attachment, etc.