2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order regarding D’s claim amount among the claim for construction cost arising from the new construction of the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E and 5 multi-household 7 households, which D is against the Defendants, and the third obligor KRW 210,272,795, with the debtor as executive title. The Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order regarding D’s claim amount among the claim for construction cost arising from the new construction of the new construction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City E and 5 multi-household 7 households, which D is against the Defendants. The court issued the seizure and collection order with the above content as above and served the Defendants around that time.

B. On the other hand, D has filed a petition for bankruptcy on July 2017 (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017Hadan3699) and is now under bankruptcy proceeding on January 16, 2018 after having been declared bankrupt.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Defendants asserted that D bears the obligation to pay the construction cost of KRW 240,103,640 against D, the Defendants deposited only KRW 134,249,947 among them and did not pay the remainder of KRW 105,854,170.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff who received the seizure and collection order against the above 105,854,170 won claims that D had against the defendants.

3. The Plaintiff, as a collection creditor, sought payment of KRW 105,854,170, which is a part of the above collection amount, against the Defendants. However, according to the above findings, the Plaintiff’s credit against D constitutes a bankruptcy claim with a claim on property arising from a cause arising before bankruptcy (Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and even if D has a claim on the construction price against the Defendants.

However, D's claim for the construction price against the Defendants falls under the bankrupt foundation with property held at the time of bankruptcy (Article 382 of the above Act) (Article 382 of the above Act).