2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

However, part of the judgment of the first instance court is revised as follows, and the judgment as to the newly asserted by the Defendants at the trial is added to the following paragraph 2.

[Revision] In the last 5th of the first instance judgment, the phrase “as requested by the Defendant” shall be deleted.

2. Additional determination

A. On or after July 16, 2018, when the collection order of this case was served on and after the summary of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants’ considerable portion of the amount paid to D corresponds to the wages to be paid to D workers and thus, cannot be seized pursuant to Article 88(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Therefore, the collection order of this case is null and void as against the claim prohibited from seizure.

B. In light of all the evidence submitted by the Defendants to the trial court, the part equivalent to wages to be paid to D workers out of KRW 2,477,60,600,00 paid to D workers after July 16, 2018 (from July 25, 2018 to October 17, 2018) exceeds the above KRW 2,477,60,600 (i.e., the above KRW 2,877,60,000) - the claim amount against Defendant B under the instant collection order - Defendant C’s claim amount of KRW 400,00,000,000, KRW 300,000 after July 16, 2018 (i.e., the amount claimed from Defendant C to October 25, 2018), and KRW 2,854,00,005,000 paid to Defendant C workers in excess of the above collection order (i.e., the amount to be paid to Defendant C workers

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion with the court of first instance, and thus, the appeal by the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.