1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Eul evidence No. 1 to 8.

On April 27, 2016, the non-party company entered into a standard subcontract agreement for construction works (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction works”) with a Pung Forest Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Pung Forest Industry”) as follows: (a) the non-party company received a subcontract from Pung Forest Industry; and (b) the non-party company received a subcontract for the following subcontracted works (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction works”).

The ordering person: Defendant subcontractor’s name: 3,546,70,000 won (labor cost 1,583,681,077 won) for the construction site of reinforced concrete among the construction site of Chuncheon A-1BL apartment: Gangwon-do Macheon-si, Gangwon-do Macheon-do, and the daily contract amount of private farming and fishing village:

B. Around May 2016, a direct payment agreement was reached between three companies, including the Defendant, the wind industry, and the non-party company regarding the instant construction project, with the following terms and conditions:

The name of the original contract: The name of the construction project subject to the subcontract for the construction project of Chuncheon A-1BL apartment: the contract amount for the construction project of reinforced concrete among the construction project of Chuncheon A-1BL apartment: 3,546,700,000 won: The contractor for wind industry: The contractor shall agree between the ordering person, the contractor and the subcontractor to pay directly to the subcontractor in accordance with Article 14 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Subcontracting and Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry in the subcontract between the above contractor and the subcontractor.

C. On September 29, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the payment order for goods payment cases with the Goyang-si District Court 2013 tea 1887, the Jinju District Court 2013, the Plaintiff was the non-party company; (b) the third debtor was the new construction and wind industry; and (c) the claim amount of KRW 110,237,397; and (d) the seizure claim’s claim “the Defendant and the third debtor and the debtor are the relationship of the Jinju-do.