1. The decision of the court of first instance that ruled against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As a matter of principle, a joint supply and demand organization in the method of determining the cause of a claim has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, and in particular, the joint supply and demand organization bears the partnership's obligations as an act of commercial activity for all the union members.

Therefore, as a member of a joint venture, the Defendant jointly subcontracted landscaping construction among the instant construction works as a whole to E, barring any other circumstances, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, all creditors of E, the total amount of KRW 24,690,952, and KRW 67,717,720 ( KRW 236,885,220 - KRW 169,167,50) plus the amount of the construction payment of the fourth additional construction work, and KRW 92,408,672, and damages for delay calculated at a rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from February 6, 2015 to October 28, 2016, which is the day following the date on which the Defendant was determined to attach and assign claims.

[Plaintiff asserts that the initial date of January 1, 2014, which was after the completion of landscaping works, is the initial date of the damages for delay. However, the seizure order for claims takes effect upon delivery to the garnishee (Article 227(3) of the Civil Execution Act). Since the effect of the seizure for claims is limited to subordinate rights, it naturally extends to the interest or damages for delay incurred after the seizure takes effect, but it does not extend to the interest or damages for delay incurred after the seizure takes effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1587, May 28, 2015). Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted).