1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On January 2, 2015, the original copy of the payment order against the Defendant was served as Sacheon City D, which is the location of the Defendant’s principal office, and E received as the Defendant’s employee. The fact that the payment order became final and conclusive on January 17, 2015, and the fact that the Defendant filed an objection to the completion of the payment order on April 8, 2015 is clear.

Meanwhile, it is impossible to serve supplementary documents under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to a person without an employment relationship with a recipient of service (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da192, Apr. 27, 1976), and the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the description of evidence No. 30, witness F, G, and H’s testimony and arguments, are the chief of a public office at the work site of remodeling construction of the defendant company, namely, E with the position of a public office at the work site of remodeling construction of the defendant company, but at the same time, E takes the lead in the contract entered into with the plaintiff company as an auditor and actual operator, and there is no evidence to prove that E worked as an employee of the defendant company even after November 2014 when remodeling was interrupted. Rather, E was employed on March 17, 2014, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's service order was lawful, and thus, the defendant's service order was unlawful at the time of filing an objection.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on June 4, 2014, between the Defendant and the I, the extension and remodeling of the J hotel on the ground and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant remodeling construction”).