1. The Defendant’s payment order for the construction cost claim against the Plaintiff was due to the Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Hu1283.

1. Basic facts - The plaintiff is a person who operates the landscape planting and facility construction business, and the defendant is a person who manufactures the c's trade name, the c', and the fluor.

- During the period from May 2016 to November 2017, the Defendant received several contracts from the Plaintiff for planting and installing a food and plant from the Plaintiff at several construction sites of recommendation, so that the Defendant failed to receive any balance of the construction cost, and filed an application for the payment order from this court against the Plaintiff.

- On May 8, 2018, this Court issued an order for payment (hereinafter “instant order for payment”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 106,978,630 won and the amount at the rate of 15% per annum from May 15, 2018 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant order for payment”) and that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection after being served with the above order for payment on May 14, 2018, and the above order for payment was finalized on May 29, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-1's entry, and the whole purport of pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. (1) The Plaintiff: (a) concluded a contract for construction works, such as D Company and E-building construction sites from May 2016 to June 2017; (b) again concluded a contract for construction works with the Defendant again from May 2016 to June 13, 2017, including 13 construction sites (hereinafter referred to as “F” and the tax invoice written by the supplier and the recipient as “Plaintiff” is issued in relation to the construction works sites; and (c) paid the Defendant the payment of KRW 14,348,68 (including additional taxes) out of the construction cost of KRW 71,13,088.

(2) Around November 2017, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for G construction, and again ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 64,357,130 (including value added tax) for the construction cost of KRW 94,853,00 (excluding value added tax) on the construction cost, as the tax invoice stated by H as a supplier of the said construction site was issued.

Therefore, the plaintiff bears only the obligation to pay the above settlement amount.

(b).