1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34,900,014 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 17, 2014 to October 10, 2017; and (b) October 11, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) regarding C’s claim for construction price claim against C, with the execution claim of KRW 34,900,014 against C, regarding the claim for construction price, against C.

B. The instant assignment order was served on the Defendant on April 28, 2014, and was finalized on May 17, 2014.

C. On March 30, 2017, the Defendant and C agreed that the remaining amount of the construction cost claim against the Defendant of C in relation to the Damour Corporation, etc. shall be KRW 28,000,000, and the Defendant paid all of them to C.

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

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff asserts that, at the time of the assignment order of this case, it is clear that C's claim for construction price against the defendant exceeds KRW 34,900,014. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the full amount and delayed payment pursuant to the above assignment order.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts to the purport that, at the time of the instant assignment order, the Defendant already repaid the obligation of KRW 3,00,000 to C for the payment of the construction price in full, KRW 18,00,000 for the delayed construction of C, and KRW 21,920,00 for the compensation for delay of construction, and KRW 25,850,100 for the payment of the construction price against C before the instant assignment order was issued, prior attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “prior assignment order”) with the claim of KRW 25,850,103 for the execution claim against C prior to the issuance of the instant assignment order, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. As to whether C’s claim for construction price against the Defendant was fully satisfied or entirely satisfied at the time of the instant assignment order, the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts as seen earlier, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 4 and 6, and the overall purport of the pleadings in the witness C’s testimony, namely, the instant DNA telecom, etc. until November 6, 2013.