The defendant's KRW 5,369,389 against the plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 21, 2020 to November 13, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In order to preserve the claim for construction cost of KRW 168,020,802 against C (hereinafter “C”), the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against C’s claim against the Defendant under Hongsung Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Kadan451, and received a provisional attachment order on October 22, 2018 (hereinafter “provisional attachment against the instant claim”) from the said court, and served the Defendant on October 25, 2018.

B. On October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff received a payment order order ordering payment of KRW 168,020,802 and delay damages from the Daejeon District Court (Seoul High Court Branch Branch Decision 201Da336, Oct. 23, 2018, and the said order became final and conclusive on November 13, 2018.

C. On September 9, 2019, the Daejeon District Court rendered a provisional attachment of KRW 168,020,820 out of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost, based on the provisional attachment of the instant claim by Hongsung Branch Branch 2019,1963, and issued a provisional attachment of KRW 21,578,095, the remaining Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost was seized, and the said decision was served on the Defendant on September 16, 2019.

On February 26, 2019, the Defendant deposited KRW 285,351,860 in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the ground that the seizure of the Defendant’s obligation to pay construction price against Daejeon District Court was concurrently conducted in gold No. 117, 2019, the Defendant deposited KRW 285,351,860 in accordance with Article 248(1) of the same Act. The Defendant’s employee omitted

E. Meanwhile, the distribution procedure for the instant deposit was carried out as Red Branch D with the Daejeon District Court Red Branch D, and the creditors except the Plaintiff were fully distributed and paid the deposit money.

F. If the Plaintiff was able to participate in the distribution procedure because it was designated as a creditor of the facts constituting the cause of deposit attached to the deposit certificate, the amount which the Plaintiff could have received was 5,369,389 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to make a judgment.