1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On May 2, 2013, a limited liability company C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) set the construction amount of KRW 5,800,000 (including value-added tax) from the Defendant, and received a contract from the new E Hospital Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) located in D located in B located in North Korea-gun.

The Plaintiff: (a) around January 2014, determined the construction amount of KRW 445,50,00 (including value-added tax) by C; and (b) received a subcontract for the installation of heating and cooling equipment during the instant construction.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). C completed the instant construction work around March 2014.

On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff and C drafted the “notarial deed of debt repayment (quasi-loan) agreement” as stipulated in Article 1129 of the F Deed No. 115, 2015, and the said notarial deed includes the following: “The said notarial deed: (a) confirm that the amount of the construction payment obligation to the Plaintiff under the subcontract of this case is KRW 146,00,000; (b) divide it as indicated in the repayment plan attached by C; and (c) recognize that there is no objection even if the said obligation is not performed immediately.”

On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) against KRW 146,026,200, out of the construction price of the instant case under the former District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 201, and the instant collection order was served on the Defendant, a garnishee, on October 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff of this case remains with additional construction cost of KRW 700,00,000, in addition to the amount of KRW 5,800,000 as stated in the contract, and the above additional construction cost claim also remains effective. Thus, since the above additional construction cost claim has the effect of the collection order of this case, the defendant is 146,026,20 won to the plaintiff as the collection right holder and 5% per annum from March 15, 2014 to the date of complete payment of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.