공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs is modified as follows. A.
Plaintiff
A against the Defendants of A.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the part on the plaintiffs in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. If there exists a seizure and collection order on the claim of the Plaintiff A with respect to the part of KRW 90,495,929, among the claims filed against the Defendants by Plaintiff A, relating to KRW 98,743,478, and KRW 90,495,929, among the claims filed against the Defendants by Plaintiff B, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the third obligor, and the obligor shall lose its standing
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60417 Decided September 25, 2008). However, on August 4, 2015, Q, a creditor of the Plaintiff A, issued a seizure and collection order against the Defendants of the Plaintiff A due to the instant construction project to the effect that Q, a creditor of the Plaintiff, attached and collected the part of the construction cost claim amounting to KRW 8,247,549, and served the said order on the Defendants around that time. On September 1, 2015, R, a creditor of the Plaintiffs due to the instant construction project, attached and collected the parts up to KRW 90,495,929, out of the construction cost claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff due to the instant construction project, and served the Defendants around that time with the seizure and collection order of the collected parts up to KRW 90,495,929, did not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by the overall purport
According to the above legal principles and the facts of recognition, the part of Plaintiff A’s claim against the Defendants (8,247,549 won) and the part of KRW 90,495,929 among Plaintiff B’s claim against the Defendants is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiffs lose their standing to file a lawsuit for performance, and that the part of KRW 90,495,929 against the Defendants of Plaintiff B was unlawful.
3. Determination as to the remaining claims of the plaintiffs
A. The reasoning of the court's explanation on this part of the claim amount of construction work against the Defendants is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 2-B and Paragraph (c).