Of the principal suit of this case, 408,240,000 won.

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

It is identical to the judgment of the first instance court, except for the modification as stated in paragraph (2) and the addition of the judgment in the next trial, and it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) Amendment 1) 1) 1) 1) 4 (1) 3 (1) 4 (1) 3 (1) 4 (2) 1 (2) 3 (2) 1 to 5 (5) 8 (2) 2) 3 (2) 11 of the first instance court’s decision are as follows.

“B. B. Determination 1 on the defense prior to the merits of the Defendant’s assertion 1) Since the obligee’s obligee obtained a seizure and collection order as to KRW 408,240,000 from the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit of this case for the payment of the construction cost against the Defendant, the obligee cannot be a party to the instant principal lawsuit against the Plaintiff.

2) If there exists a seizure and collection order on the related legal principles, the creditor who has received the collection order may exercise the right on behalf of the debtor necessary for the collection of the claim, and as a result, the debtor loses the right to perform the lawsuit against the third debtor after the collection order and loses the standing to institute a performance lawsuit against the third debtor against the claims subject to the seizure and collection order. Thus, the debtor's lawsuit for performance filed by the debtor against the claims subject to the seizure and collection order shall be dismissed without any need to deliberate and determine on the merits of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da2388, Apr. 11, 200). Meanwhile, the seizure order takes effect when it was served on the third debtor (Article 227(3) of the Civil Execution Act; Article 227(3) of the same Act provides that the effect of the seizure is limited to the interest and delay damages arising after the seizure becomes effective, and