1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a payment order of KRW 171,978,087 with the Daegu District Court for the payment order of KRW 171,978,087 against Taecheon-N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tai-N”), and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

(G) Daegu District Court of 2015 tea, 936, Na.

On the basis of the above payment order, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Ulsan District Court for the attachment of claims against the Defendant as the third obligor, and the decision of acceptance was made on May 31, 2016 and became final and conclusive on June 18, 2016.

(Ulsan District Court 2016 Other 101894) c.

In the case of the above claim seizure and assignment order, the Defendant submitted the third obligor statement stating that the Defendant paid KRW 287,386,00 of the contract amount of KRW 538,482,520 among the contract amount of KRW 538,482,520, 287,386,00 for reasons of contract change, etc., and that the difference may also be changed at the time of final settlement.

On September 27, 2017, Thaienna requested the Defendant to terminate the contract on the grounds of the prolonged delay of construction, etc., and the Defendant changed the amount of the existing contract to KRW 287,504,80, which is the amount already paid, to KRW 287,500, and notified the termination of the contract as of October 25, 2017 at Thaienna on the date of November 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment revealed that the Plaintiff renounced the construction of Thailand. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the waiver of the construction would demand the payment of the full amount if the waiver was caused by deception between the Defendant and Thailand, and that the submission of a letter of waiver of the construction would be sought if the waiver was true.

As seen earlier, the construction contract between the defendant and Thai-Non is an essential part of the termination of Thai-Neman

There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had the obligation to pay to Tae Jong-kin, which was terminated by the Agency, and otherwise, the Plaintiff.