1. From February 27, 2016 to the Plaintiff regarding KRW 31,196,274 and KRW 31,041,690 among the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the Defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, except for the reasons for appeal, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated below 3 in the second 12 ~10 pages) is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The "court appraisal" in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be all "appraisal of the court of first instance".

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Appraiser” shall be regarded as “appraisal of the first instance court”.

C. The 7th day of the first instance judgment “attached Form 1” shall be deemed to be “attached Form 1 of the first instance judgment.”

Pursuant to the 10th Table of the judgment of the first instance, the "this Court" shall be deemed to be the "court of the first instance."

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the defense prior to the merits is as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the allegations added by the defendant in this court, 6 to 11), except for the following additional determinations as to the allegations added by the defendant in this court, and thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Since 13,776,432 of the construction cost claims asserted by the plaintiff and the delayed damages therefrom are related to the attachment and collection order of AM, the lawsuit seeking payment is unlawful.

B. According to the evidence No. 47 as to the judgment No. 47, the claim amounting to KRW 13,776,432, out of the claim amount against the Plaintiff on December 8, 2016, and KRW 13,776,432, among the claim amount for construction cost against the Plaintiff against the Defendant of the Plaintiff, the attachment and collection order (No. 2016 other bond 18625) was issued, and the above order was served on the Defendant on December 12, 2016.

However, if Gap evidence Nos. 24 and 25 added the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and Gap agreed to waive the seizure and collection of the above claims on April 13, 2017, and upon the request of AM (Appointed Party), it can be acknowledged that the above seizure and collection order was cancelled on June 18, 2018. Thus, the defendant's merits are as follows.