The main office of this case is dismissed.

2. An objection to the trial;

2. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the allegations by the parties are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. We examine ex officio the legality of the principal lawsuit (the part against which the plaintiff was not dissatisfied with the claim of the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance was transferred to the trial, and Article 415 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, does not apply to the above part by the court ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817, Jul. 25, 1995). Thus, when there exists a seizure and collection order on the claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit against the third debtor for performance against the third debtor, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit against execution of the seized claim, and the same applies to the case where the State seizes claims against the third debtor against the third debtor due to a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act

(2) On November 12, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order as to KRW 14,634,432 of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction work of the instant building as the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court on August 13, 2013 and issued a seizure and collection order as to KRW 14,634,432 of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction work of the instant building as to KRW 14,634,432 among the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction work of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of Incheon District Court on December 10, 2013, the Defendant was served on the Defendant on the 16th of the same month. The Plaintiff’s seizure and collection order as to KRW 70,3777,86,2146,616,6216.