The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 67,525,69 won with 15% per annum from January 3, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order for the amount of KRW 58,00,000, out of the construction price to be paid for Taeju Construction and Multi-household Construction (excluding the bonds, such as wages prohibited from seizure under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) as claims against the Defendant by Suwon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tai Construction”) (hereinafter “Tai Construction”) in Suwon Construction and the Defendant.

The above decision shall be in the same year.

3.9. Service was made to the Defendant.

B. Around 2016, the Defendant awarded a contract for the 869,000,000 won of the contract amount for the Newly constructed construction to Thai Construction, and among them, agreed to pay KRW 160,000,000 as the retainer.

C. On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into the said new construction subcontract with the Defendant as a claim against the Defendant for Taedo Construction in Suwon District Court (2017TTTTTTT 5596) and the Defendant’s new construction subcontract for the said new construction project, and the amount of money up to KRW 58,00,00 according to the said provisional attachment decision, among the construction cost to be paid for Taedo Construction, shall be transferred to the original attachment, and the remainder of KRW 9,525,69 shall be seized (excluding the claims, such as wages, etc., the seizure of which is prohibited under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and the Plaintiff was determined to collect

The above ruling was served on October 19 of the same year on the defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, Eul 1, Eul 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. If it is extremely difficult for the Plaintiff to apply for provisional attachment of the instant provisional attachment with the knowledge that, as the Defendant’s argument regarding the cause of the claim, it contracted the said construction to Taedo Construction, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against the claim for the construction cost, with the knowledge that the Defendant would contract the said construction to Taedo Construction, and thus, it is extremely difficult for the Plaintiff to apply for provisional attachment against the claim for construction