1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant: (a) issued a notarized deed No. 492 (hereinafter “instant notarized deed”) No. 2016, 2016, which was signed between the Plaintiff and the non-party company (hereinafter “the instant notarized deed”); (b) filed an application for the attachment and assignment order of the claim with the Suwon District Court for KRW 148,038,00 among the claim for construction price against the Plaintiff based on the on-site construction contract that the non-party company entered into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, as the title of title; and (c) received the attachment and assignment order of the claim on October 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and assignment order”).

B. The instant claim attachment and assignment order was served on October 21, 2016 on the Plaintiff, the garnishee, and on November 21, 2016 on the non-party company, the debtor, respectively, and was finalized on November 29, 2016.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, contracted the construction to the Nonparty Company on the site of “the construction of the welfare center for the aged in Yong-gu,” and the Nonparty Company subcontracted the said construction to the Defendant.

After that, the plaintiff, the non-party company, and the defendant agreed to pay the subcontract price on August 8, 2016. Accordingly, both the non-party company's claim for the construction price against the plaintiff and the defendant's claim for the subcontract price against the non-party company were extinguished.

Nevertheless, the defendant was prepared with respect to the subcontract price claim against the non-party company, and received the attachment and assignment order of this case based on this.

Therefore, the authentication of this case and the seizure and assignment order of this case are null and void.

3. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is currently infeasible in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.