1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, a notary public, who holds title to C (hereinafter “C”), filed an application for a seizure and collection order with respect to “the claim for construction work under subcontract from the Defendant and for the future and payment of construction cost,” with the Seoul Central District Court’s KRW 191,978,219 (the execution cost of KRW 191,452,069 based on the above enforcement title), based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 321, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 321, 2015. The Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) with the Defendant on May 10, 2016. The instant seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on May 10, 2016.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Evidence No. 8-3, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties against the Defendant that the collection amount of KRW 191,452,069 based on the instant seizure and collection order, and damages for delay are claimed against the Defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the contract price payable to C remains, and even if some of the contract price remains, the short-term extinctive prescription for three years has already been completed.

B. First of all, in the case of a claim for collection, C bears the burden of proving that it has a claim for construction price against the Defendant, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

In particular, prior to the determination of the remainder, the fact that the Defendant’s claim for extinctive prescription was examined, and that the claim for construction price against the Defendant by the Plaintiff was already incurred three years retroactively from the date of the instant lawsuit is not disputed between the parties. However, the Plaintiff paid construction price to C on February 23, 2016.