A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,874,293 5% interest per annum from April 14, 2012 to August 3, 2014.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be three minutes, and two of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined that Article 1 of the instant specifications provides that the term “the condition to absorb the heat sources of waste water discharged and to supply hot water to the hot water tank which produced 65-7 5 %) can be deemed as the content of the instant installation contract as to the essential performance that the instant installation contract intends to achieve as the instant installation contract. However, the instant hot water production system was merely 42 %) and the Defendant rescinded the installation contract on March 6, 2012, but the instant hot water production system maintained the performance of at least 80%, and this is also significant interest to the Defendant, the contractor, and thus, the Plaintiff may claim construction payment for the portion of 80% corresponding to the existing rate.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of disposal documents, interpretation of contract, and nonperformance of obligation, contrary to what is alleged in the

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, an order of seizure of a claim becomes effective at the time of delivery to a garnishee (Article 227(3) of the Civil Execution Act). Since such an order of seizure of a claim remains effective, it does not naturally extend to the interest or delay damages incurred after the seizure becomes effective, but does not extend to the interest or delay damages incurred before the seizure becomes effective (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1587, May 28, 2015). In addition, when an order of seizure is issued, the seized claim shall be transferred to the execution creditor in lieu of the payment for the seized claim, and the assignment order shall become final and conclusive (Article 229(3) and (7) of the Civil Execution Act), and its confirmation shall retroactively apply to the time when the assignment order was served to the third obligor.

On July 31, 2014, the lower court: (a) ordered the Plaintiff’s debt seizure and assignment order with respect to KRW 15,874,293, out of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the unpaid construction price against the Defendant; (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 15,874,293 was reached on August 4, 2014, and that the claim attachment and assignment order reached the Defendant, who is the garnishee, and became final and conclusive on August 20, 2014; and (c) determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 51,00,000,000 and delayed payment damages at the rate of KRW 20,000 per annum from the next day of the payment to the date of full payment; (d) determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 89,100,000 per annum 71,280,000,0000, KRW 371,37081,7,071.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the effect of the above claim attachment and assignment order against the defendant is limited to KRW 15,874,293, which was seized among the claims for the payment of the construction price payable against the defendant, and damages for delay incurred after such attachment became effective, and it is less than the damages for delay incurred prior thereto. Thus, the above claim for damages for delay arising before the attachment and assignment order takes effect against the claim for the construction price of KRW 15,874,293, which was transferred from the plaintiff to metal from the plaintiff to the corporation, shall not be transferred to metal of the corporation,

Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as to the damages for delay arising prior to the validity of the above claim attachment and assignment order as to the claim for construction price KRW 15,874,293. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the effect of the claim attachment and assignment order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to damages for delay against the above 15,874,293 won is reversed, and this part is sufficient for the Supreme Court to render a judgment, and thus, it is hard to

According to the above, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 14, 2012, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case as to KRW 15,874,293, which was attached and entirely attached to the Plaintiff, to the third obligor from August 3, 2014, which was the day before the attachment and assignment order of the above claim was served to the third obligor. As such, the part concerning damages for delay on the payment of the above KRW 15,874,293, among the Plaintiff’s claims, shall be cited within the scope of the above recognition,

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is partially modified as above, the remainder of the appeal is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is assessed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.