A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C (hereinafter “C”) seeking payment of the price for the goods. On November 8, 2017, the court rendered a judgment ordering C to pay KRW 34,151,664 and its delay damages to the Plaintiff. The said judgment became final and conclusive on November 30, 2017.

(Dacheon District Court Decision 2017Gadan11386). (b)

C filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order seeking the performance of the construction cost, and on August 12, 2016, the court ordered the Defendant to pay C KRW 112.57 million and its delay damages. The said payment order was finalized on September 2, 2016.

(Dacheon District Court Decision 2016JJ 2157).C.

On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 41,532,107 from among the claims for construction price under the above payment order that C holds against the Defendant based on the claim for the price of goods held to C according to the above final judgment. The Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on January 10, 2019.

(In Mancheon District Court Decision 2018Tacheon-do 20136). 【Ground of Recognition】 There has been no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant, who bears the obligation to pay the construction cost to C, such as the finalized payment order, is obligated to pay the plaintiff as the execution creditor according to the collection order, the collection creditor, and the delay damages.

On this issue, the defendant asserts that there is no debt against C, and thus, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

Although it is unclear whether the defendant's assertion from the beginning that there is no debt against C, or that the defendant fully repaid the debt against C before serving the order of seizure or provisional seizure, it is the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment in accordance with Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act if it is the former.