2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 9,964.

A. The Defendant was awarded a contract with C Co., Ltd. for construction works related to D ground-based vehicles (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

On March 19, 2014, the Defendant concluded a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the execution of steel frame, board, and Changho Construction Work (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), setting the rate of liquidated damages as 0.1% from April 14, 2014 to June 10, 2014, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the execution of steel frame, board, and Changho Construction Work during the instant construction (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

The method of paying the construction cost under the instant construction contract is stipulated to pay each of the remainder of KRW 105,50,000,000 within seven days after the conclusion of the contract, KRW 100,000 at the time of entering the steel-frame site, KRW 145,00,000 at the time of completion of the steel-frame construction, and KRW 15,00 within 7 days after completion of the contract.

B. From April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction from around October 14, 201, and completed the instant construction work with the firstman on October 2014.

Meanwhile, from May 23, 2014 to January 13, 2015, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 350 million in total with respect to the instant construction project nine times, on the other hand.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. When there exists a seizure and collection order against the debtor's monetary claim, etc. against the third party debtor, only the execution creditor who has received the seizure and collection order pursuant to Articles 238 and 249 (1) of the Civil Execution Act may file a lawsuit claiming the performance of the seized claim against the third party debtor. The debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit claiming performance against the third party debtor with regard to the claims bearing the seizure and collection order. Thus, the lawsuit for performance filed by the debtor against the claims bearing the seizure and collection order is unlawful and dismissed without any need to review and determine the merits of the lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da202120, Dec. 18, 2013). (b)

the record of the evidence of No. 5 and the whole pleadings.