Of the judgment of the court below against Plaintiff A, 124,70,274 won and the interest rate shall be from June 9, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. We examine the Plaintiff A’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the grounds of appeal on the standing to be a party, if there exists a seizure and collection order against the garnishee, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the obligor loses the standing to file a performance lawsuit against the seized claim, but if the collection obligee loses the ability to collect by withdrawal of the application for the seizure and collection order, etc. while the performance lawsuit is pending, the obligor shall recover the standing to be a party.

Such circumstances should be examined and determined by the court ex officio even if the parties do not assert such facts as the ex officio investigation. If the litigation requirements, such as the standing to sue, are not satisfied or such defects are cured after the closing of the arguments in the fact-finding court,

(2) On November 25, 2010, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost of subcontracted works against the Defendant of the Plaintiff under the instant construction agreement, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost of subcontracted works against the Defendant of the Plaintiff under the instant construction agreement was invalidated on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 124,70,274 of the amount claimed under the Seoul Central District Court 2017TTTT No. 2017TT 7454 and the Defendant’s third obligor was issued with the attachment and collection order of KRW 124,70,274 of the amount claimed under the instant construction agreement and the said order was served on the Defendant on June 8, 2017.

However, according to the records, on June 5, 2008, which was after the decision of the court below, the collection creditor submitted a written waiver of the collection right to the court of execution as to the seizure and collection order of the above claim on June 5, 2008, which was after the decision of the court below, and CE lost its ability to collect.

On the other hand, in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff A’s primary claim that was dismissed as above.