1. Plaintiff 1, among the parts against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the following amount which orders payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12-5.

(1) On February 1, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the co-defendants of the first instance trial on the installation of the “Am-free street or shopping No. 1 store” (hereinafter “the instant construction”) conducted in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, under which the construction cost is KRW 1,481,970,000, with the Co-defendants of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Um-dong Construction”).

(2) On February 28, 2005, Gyeong Construction entered into a subcontract with Defendant Lex, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Lex”), and entered into a subcontract with the construction cost of KRW 381,780,000 as to the steel frame portion among the instant construction works, and around March 2, 2005, Defendant Lex entered into a subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff on the payment of subcontract price, and notified the Plaintiff of the conclusion of the subcontract.

(3) On May 10, 2005, the Daesung Construction entered into a subcontract with the Defendant Hobbnb Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Lee Industrial Development Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hobnbnb”) on the part of the instant construction at KRW 911,90,900 for the cost of construction as to the temporary metal roof and home-based construction during the instant construction, and concluded a subcontract with the Plaintiff to the effect that even if the Defendant Hobnbnb did not raise any objection against the payment of the subcontract price directly from the Plaintiff, it would not raise any objection to the conclusion of the subcontract.

(4) On April 11, 2005, the office elevator limited liability company (hereinafter “Es”) received a provisional attachment order against the claim against the debtor, which reads the debtor as Ulsan District Court 2005Kadan3514 on April 11, 2005, the debtor, the third debtor as the contract price claim of KRW 23,760,00,000, and the claim to be provisionally seized as the provisional attachment against the claim of KRW 23,760,000 out of the contract price claim in the construction site of this case.