A. Based on the authentic copy of an executory deed of 2013 and 1331, the Plaintiff filed a claim amounting to KRW 287,00,00,000 with the executory exemplification of the notarial deed of 2013 and 1331, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Incheon District Court for the seizure and collection order of the claim amounting to the above claim amount out of the construction cost claim against the Defendant of the non-party company, the garnishee, and the seizure and collection order of the non-party company. The above court issued a seizure and collection order of the same content as of February 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant collection order”). The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on February 10, 2014.

B. At the time of serving the collection order of this case, the Defendant assumed the obligation to pay the construction price of KRW 197,431,380 to the non-party company.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 197,431,380 and delay damages from the next day after the delivery of the complaint of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

[Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the instant collection order until the date of service of the instant complaint, but the collection order is limited to granting the creditor the right to collect the debtor's claims against the third debtor, and does not order the third debtor to pay the creditor the amount equivalent to the amount of the claims seized to the execution creditor, or setting the payment deadline. Thus, the third debtor is liable for delay as to the amount equivalent to the amount of the claims seized to the execution creditor, not from the time when the execution court receives the delivery of the collection order from the execution court, but from the day after receiving the claim for collection from the execution creditor after the issuance of the collection order (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da47117, Oct. 25, 2012). 3.