1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) with respect to service-related claims against the Defendant pursuant to the “business agreement and agency contract” entered into with the Defendant by Busan District Court Decision 2014Gahap11883 on October 10, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with respect to the service-related claims against the Defendant as to the construction (hereinafter “the instant order of seizure and collection”).

The instant order of seizure and collection was served on October 15, 2014 on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. In order to provide the Defendant with services necessary for the entire new construction project of this case, such as the selection of a contractor, various authorizations and permissions, and membership recruitment, the construction of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant had entered into an advisory contract with the Plaintiff and actually provided the Defendant with the services through advice provided by the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, construction has a claim to receive service costs or service fees from the defendant, who is the claim subject to the seizure and collection order of this case.

As the third debtor of the seizure and collection order of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 228,104,600 won and damages for delay, which the plaintiff seeks, out of the amount of seizure based on the seizure and collection order of this case, to the plaintiff who is the collection right holder.

B. Under the business agreement and agency contract, which is the Defendant’s claim subject to seizure (hereinafter “instant business agreement”), there is no further claim for service costs against the Defendant of construction.

The seizure and collection order of this case is null and void.

3. Determination

(a)in seizure of claims;