The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal did not proceed any longer since the construction of this case was actually suspended at the time the Defendant first served the attachment of the claim.

The judgment of the court below that judged that it was difficult for the plaintiff to accurately understand the amount of the subcontract price on the part of the flag work executed by the plaintiff until then, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

However, examining the records, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules without making all necessary deliberation on this part of the court below's fact-finding and judgment.

2. As to the second ground of appeal, "where the person who has performed the obligation cannot identify the obligee without negligence" under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act refers to where the obligee or the person who has the right to receive reimbursement exists objectively, but even if the obligor fulfills his/her fiduciary duty, it is difficult to identify who is the obligee. Therefore, in cases where the obligor cannot know who is the obligee among the previous obligee and the new obligee due to the reason such as the transfer of the claim, etc., the obligor has the reason for the deposit for repayment based on which

In addition, if a decision of provisional seizure or seizure with the former creditor as a provisional seizure debtor or execution debtor is made in sequence and thus the claim should be repaid to the previous creditor, the cause of execution deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act arises due to the concurrence of seizure, the debtor is a repayment deposit based on the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.