1. Of the amount of KRW 91,657,480 deposited by the Jeonju District Court No. 453 on November 30, 2018, the Southern District Court of the Republic of Korea (Seoul District Court of the Republic of Korea), 43,76

1. Only K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), such as direct payment agreement of subcontract consideration and seizure or provisional seizure of the claim for construction cost, are “K”. The Defendants, a stock company, omitted the entry of “stock company” in the indication of the Defendants. On May 2018, the Defendants, who were the Defendants, contracted L Corporation (one construction section) from Namwon-si, and subcontracted the Plaintiff of reinforced concrete construction among them.

The Plaintiff, K and South Won-si: (a) prepared a “Agreement on Direct Payment of Subcontract Price”; (b) filed an application by classifying the details of the part that the Plaintiff performed upon the inspection and completion inspection; and (c) filed a claim for the payment of subcontract price separately; and (d) the payment of subcontract price was directly made to the Plaintiff at the Southern Won-si on October 18, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of KRW 100,884,000 for South Won-si.

On the other hand, as stated in the plaintiff and the defendants (attached Form), each attachment or provisional attachment against the claim for the construction cost against K in South Korea was applied and the order of seizure or provisional attachment was served in order of South Korea.

On November 30, 2018, the Namwon-si deposited KRW 91,657,480 with the Plaintiff and the Defendants as the depositee in accordance with the Jeonju District Court Decision Decision 2015Da453, Nov. 30, 2018, and the distribution procedure was commenced by deposit of KRW 91,657,480. The provisional attachment of Defendant B was revoked on January 23, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8-9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If the ordering person agrees to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor by the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor, the right to request a direct payment against the subcontractor on the ground of the Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5017 Decided November 29, 2007, where the subcontractor actually completed the subcontracted work, Defendant D, H with regard to this matter, and the subcontractor’s right to request a direct payment of the subcontract price equivalent to the portion that the subcontractor performed after the subcontractor completed the subcontracted work.