1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Both claims asserted on April 10, 2014, that the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction works among the construction works for the facilities for supporting the 000 support facilities that were ordered by the National Armed Forces Finance Management Body from the Defendant on April 10, 201, and agreed with the Defendant as the construction cost of KRW 150,000,000 with the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 150,000,000 from the Defendant.

On this issue, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's creditors received a seizure and collection order, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is not a party-qualified lawsuit.

2. When there exists a seizure and collection order against the garnishee regarding the monetary claim, etc. of the debtor against the third debtor when determining the lawfulness of the lawsuit in this case, only the execution creditor who has received the seizure and collection order pursuant to Articles 238 and 249(1) of the Civil Execution Act may file a lawsuit claiming the performance of the seized claim against the third debtor. The debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit claiming performance against the third debtor against the garnishee regarding the claims bearing the seizure and collection order. Thus, the lawsuit for performance filed by the debtor against the claims bearing the seizure and collection order shall be dismissed without any need to review and determine the merits of the lawsuit.

(1) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are examined: (a) Supreme Court Decision 99Da2388 Decided April 11, 200; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da202120 Decided December 18, 2013; and (b) Decision 2013Da202120 Decided December 18, 2013; and (c) Decision 143,698,820 on April 14, 2016 on the Plaintiff’s above claim for the construction payment against the Defendant as the District Court Decision 2016Da5283 Decided April 14, 2016; and (d) Decision 2016Da6235 Decided May 9, 2016 on the Plaintiff’s above claim for construction payment against the Defendant; and (e) Decision 39,468,624, and each of the above claims against the Defendant may be recognized.