1. Of the lawsuit in this case, KRW 24,929,136 and its corresponding amount shall be from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Upon receipt of a request from the Defendant for the reinforcement of retaining wall of the wife population C apartment in Young-si from November 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff carried out land creation and the reinforcement of retaining wall (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Defendant paid only KRW 37,00,000 out the construction price and did not pay the remainder of KRW 44,750,000 (value added tax separate) to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction price of KRW 44,750,00 and damages for delay at a rate of 12% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In light of the purport of the evidence No. 10-1 to No. 4 of the evidence No. 10-4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, D, on May 31, 2019, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the Suwon District Court 2018Gau38990 case against the Plaintiff, on May 31, 2019, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment regarding the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 24,929,136 out of the construction cost of the instant case against the Defendant, the Suwon District Court rendered a decision of the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”), and D, based on the seizure and collection order of the instant case, has become final and conclusive. D, based on the seizure and collection order of the instant case, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as the Suwon District Court 2019Gau1943.

(b) If there exists a seizure and collection order against the claim, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

According to the above facts of recognition, D is the debtor, and D is the third debtor with respect to the plaintiff's construction price of this case, 24,929,136 won among the construction price of this case against the plaintiff's defendant and its delay damages.