1. The defendant shall pay 24,600,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Basic Facts

A. On June 2013, the Defendant contracted D New Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”) to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and C subcontracted the instant construction work to the Plaintiff around June 2013.

On July 10, 2013, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction and completed the instant construction around September 2013.

B. On December 20, 2013, G obtained a collection order (the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch 2013TTT2689; hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) against C’s Defendant on “a claim of KRW 100 million out of the D New Construction Work Price Claim (except for the amount equivalent to wages subject to prohibition of seizure under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry)” by a notary public with the title of execution of No. 502, No. 502, Dec. 20, 2013, G received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”), and the above claim seizure and collection order were served to the Defendant around that time.

C. On February 13, 2014, C transferred KRW 33,900,00 of wage claims to the Plaintiff among the construction cost claims against the Defendant (hereinafter “transfer of claim in this case”), and notified the Defendant of the transfer of claim around that time.

C The amount of the unpaid construction cost claim against the Defendant is KRW 24,600,000.

[Ground] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, witness E, F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, against the defendant, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the payment of the acquisition amount of the construction price claim against the defendant. The defendant asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because there is a risk of double payment since it has already been served with a seizure and collection order prior to being notified of the assignment of the claim of this case. If there exists a seizure and collection order for the third debtor, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the third debtor, and the debtor loses the standing to bring a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim, which is the seizure claim against the debtor.