1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 13, 2015, Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Fuhoho Lake Construction”) transferred KRW 124,127,740, out of the claim for construction cost to a joint development company (hereinafter “instant claim for construction cost”) based on the identity of Geumcheon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Fuho Lake Construction”) (hereinafter “instant claim for construction cost”) to the Defendant. On February 27, 2015, the said assignment was notified to the comprehensive development company based on the content-certified mail with a fixed date.

B. On March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 63,418,828 of the instant construction cost claim by the Incheon District Court 2015Kadan30121, and on March 11, 2015, the provisional attachment order of the said claim was served on the comprehensive development of identity.

C. On April 2, 2015, an identity comprehensive development was deposited by mixing KRW 16,70,270,270, which was the Seoul Central District Court No. 7219, which deducted part of the claim for the construction payment of this case, with the deposited person as the Defendant or Kohho Construction.

(hereinafter “instant deposit”) D.

After receiving a payment order from the Incheon District Court No. 2015 tea1781 against the construction of Geumcheonho, the Plaintiff was issued the Seoul Central District Court’s order to seize and collect the claim for payment of the instant deposit against the Republic of Korea on April 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the contract for the transfer of the instant contract for construction price against the Defendant of Geumcheon Construction is null and void in violation of a special agreement prohibiting transfer, and sought confirmation that the claim for the transfer of the instant contract price was made against the Plaintiff.

B. In a case where a debtor makes a mixed deposit due to the causes for repayment deposit under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the causes for execution deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, a court of execution is deposited through the confirmation of the cause for repayment deposit of creditor uncertainty, for example, the reason for repayment deposit of creditor uncertainty, and the fact that the assignment