1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay KRW 347,007,101 to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

3...

1. We examine the legality of the lawsuit against the plaintiff against the defendant ex officio, who is disqualified as a party under the collection order.

If a seizure and collection order is issued for a claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment on September 25, 2008, and Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da60417, Feb. 25, 2010; 2009Da85717, Feb. 25, 2010; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da85717, Feb. 25, 2010; 2009Da85717, Feb. 25, 2010; 2015Da85717, Jul. 16, 2015; 2015, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the obligor, the Defendant, the third obligor, and the seized claim against the Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the instant case, based on the Seoul District Court Decision 2014Ga4305, Jul. 16, 2015.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

(B) On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant is deemed as the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion. 2. According to the following purport: (a) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was examined as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor; (b) Party A’s testimony as to the witness A; and (c) the order of submission of tax information on the South Mancheon Tax Office and the entire pleadings by this court; and (d) concluded a contract on the supply and installation of products with the Defendant for the supply, installation, maintenance, and repair of the ED lighting equipment with the Defendant on November 18, 2013.