1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff bears the remainder of the litigation costs, excluding appraisal fees.

The Plaintiff filed an application against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor for a payment order for the payment of the amount of ready-mixed with the Suwon District Court Decision 2017 tea252, which became final and conclusive on June 2, 2017.

On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order as to the above payment order among the claim for construction cost, the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor under the contract, such as the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor and the Defendant’s expansion project of convenience facilities between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, against the Defendant. The order was served on the Defendant on August 3, 2017.

[See Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4] The Plaintiff sought a collection payment against the Defendant in this case.

On the other hand, when there exists a seizure and collection order as to a claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The debtor is disqualified as a party to a lawsuit for performance against the claim subject to seizure, but if the collection creditor loses his/her ability to collect according to the withdrawal, etc. of the application for the seizure and collection order while the lawsuit for performance is pending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64877, Nov. 25, 2010). While the lawsuit in this case is pending, the plaintiff filed an application for the cancellation and cancellation of the application for the seizure and collection order on September 12, 2018, and served on the defendant on September 19, 2018 (see, e.g., evidence (see, subparagraph 4)., the plaintiff lost his/her capacity to collect the claim in this case.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.