Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On August 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a claim attachment and collection order under the court 2017TT No. 12113 against the Plaintiff of Gwangju District Court 2017Da50693 on August 11, 2017 (hereinafter “C”); and (b) both the Plaintiff and C filed an appeal against the Plaintiff of the lawsuit (the main lawsuit), based on the executory judgment in the claim for construction cost against the Plaintiff of the Gwangju District Court 2017Da50693 (the main lawsuit); (c) filed an appeal against the Plaintiff of the lawsuit (the “instant appellate judgment”); (d) filed a claim attachment and collection order under the court 2017TT 1213; and (e) the said lawsuit was declared on August 21, 2019; and (e) both the Plaintiff and C filed an appeal against the Plaintiff as a counterclaim.

B. On August 25, 2017, the Defendant was issued an assignment order with respect to KRW 33,200,000, out of KRW 54,687,560 of the instant appellate court’s claim against the Plaintiff at issue against the Plaintiff by this Court No. 2017T No. 12925, August 25, 2017. The said assignment order was finalized on August 5, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant assignment order”) C.

Meanwhile, on December 12, 2019, the appeal filed by C against the Plaintiff was dismissed and finalized as it is.

(hereinafter “this case’s judgment”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 12, 2020, the Plaintiff served a duplicate of the instant complaint on the part of the Plaintiff as an automatic claim for damages arising from the Plaintiff’s construction works against C, and expressed an intention of offsetting the Defendant’s entire amount of the claim. Therefore, there is no claim for the entire amount under the instant assignment order.

B. Supreme Court Decision 2019Da266508 Decided August 25, 2017 ruled that the assignment order of this case was issued on December 12, 2019, which was later after August 25, 2017, and thus, it has no effect as it was declared that the above assignment order exists, and the defendant merely is a full creditor, and it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution based on the above ruling.

3. Determination

A. First, with regard to the Plaintiff’s claim for set-off, each of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2 as to the Plaintiff’s claim for set-off is defective against Eul.