The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 9, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the claim claim indicated in the attached list, which was issued against the Plaintiff of the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”) as the seized claim (hereinafter “the seized claim of this case”).

B. On April 11, 2018, the foregoing court issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant collection order”) (hereinafter “instant collection order”). On April 11, 2018, the instant collection order for the seizure and collection of the said claim reaches the Plaintiff on April 11, 2018.

(c)

On November 5, 2018, the Defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 26.4 million from April 17, 2018 out of the instant seized claim and delayed damages (hereinafter “former lawsuit”).

(d)

On August 22, 2019, the above court concluded the pleading and rendered the previous judgment of this case that “A shall pay to Defendant B the amount of KRW 26,400,000 and the amount of delayed damages.” On the same day, the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 19, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4-7 evidence, Eul 1, 2-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the argument D Company was not paid the construction cost of KRW 106,800,000 in relation to the detached housing construction in E-si, Leecheon-si.

The representative of D Co., Ltd. leased real estate at the bottom indicated in the separate sheet from the non-party company (the rent of KRW 2.2 million per month). The Plaintiff and the non-party company agreed to set off the above rent claim arising each month between the Plaintiff and the non-party company against the above claim for the construction payment (the evidence No. 3).

After confirming the collection order of this case, the plaintiff confirmed that the defendant cannot pay the rent on the basis of the above agreement.