1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the next order of payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either of the parties to the dispute or as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and Eul evidence No. 22:

A. On July 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on behalf of the Plaintiff, ordered the Plaintiff to sell a D hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”) 250 hotel units in the building, Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant hotel”); and (b) the main content of the sales agency contract is as shown in attached Table 1.

(hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”). (b)

On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to extend the term of the contract stipulated in the instant parcelling-out agency contract and to revise the contents of the payment of the agency fee. The modified contents priority over the instant parcelling-out agency contract and are not included in the contents of the agreement are to comply with the contents stipulated in the instant parcelling-out agency contract. The main contents of the agreement in this case are as shown in attached Table

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

On April 30, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a document containing the purport that “The entire reservation amount and the real estate ownership under Article 12 revert to the Defendant pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Agreement shall belong to the Defendant on May 1, 2015 pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Agreement, and Article 13 of the Agreement on Sales Agency,” and the said document reached the Plaintiff around that time.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. Since J, the obligee of the main purport of the main defense, received a seizure and collection order from the Plaintiff, and served the Defendant with respect to KRW 18,498,152 of the Plaintiff’s sales agency fee of this case, and thus, the above seizure and collection order was issued, the Plaintiff cannot seek payment of this part.

B. If there exists a seizure and collection order against the judgment claim, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

Supreme Court Decision 200.4.4.