1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 2012, a building company for brick mountain construction (hereinafter “building for brick mountain”) was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a mountain village village and plant source exhibition hall (hereinafter “instant construction”). On October 3, 2012, the building of reinforced concrete among the instant construction was subcontracted to a subsidiary construction company (hereinafter “subsidiary construction”).

(hereinafter “instant subcontracted project”). (b)

On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply agreement with the subsidiary construction and supplied construction materials (arching doping, etc.) in connection with the instant construction project. There are KRW 53,626,433 of the price claim for goods to the subsidiary construction.

C. On July 3, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures for brick construction, and on November 1, 2012, the rehabilitation plan was approved. D.

On January 7, 2013, the Defendant, who is the ordering person, paid the subcontract price in this case directly to the supplementary construction pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”), and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant direct payment agreement”). (e)

On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff and secondary construction entered into a bonds transfer agreement with the Plaintiff to transfer KRW 53,626,43 of the instant subcontract price claim for which secondary construction is to be paid from brick construction, and notified the Plaintiff of this on the same day.

F. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff provisionally attached KRW 53,626,43, among the claims for construction cost owed by the secondary construction to the Defendant (this Court Decision 2013Kadan2569), and the provisional attachment ruling was served on June 13, 2013 to the Defendant.

On September 4, 2013, the provisional attachment was transferred to the provisional attachment on September 4, 2013 (this court 2013TTTT 11762), and the above order was served on the defendant on September 9, 2013.

(hereinafter “this case’s collection order”). [Ground for recognition] does not dispute, A.