1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claim of the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the basic facts are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. If there exists a seizure and collection order concerning the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, only the collection creditor 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da70067 Decided August 19, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da70067, Aug. 19, 201). According to each of the evidence of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the succeeding intervenor, based on the authentic copy of the Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na81758 Decided December 18, 2014, against KRW 781,251,288, among the loans the Plaintiff seeks against the Defendant as of December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, the garnishee, the Defendant, the claim amount, KRW 781,251,288 (the succeeding Intervenor F: 283,237,151, the succeeding Intervenor H: 229,468,329, the succeeding Intervenor: 268,548,8808).

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay from December 23, 2014, which is the day following the date when the collection order of this case was served on the Defendant and its validity, among the instant lawsuits, is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant

A. According to the facts found in the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is the plaintiff of this case.