The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where there exists a collection order for the seizure and collection of monetary claims as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, the garnishee may oppose the execution creditor for any reason against the seizure obligor before the seizure is effected.

In the meantime, where the contractor and the contractor agree to pay directly the wages for the workers of the contractor or the price for the goods necessary for the work to the client’s customer within the scope of the contract price to be paid to the contractor (hereinafter “direct payment agreement”), the contractor may refuse to pay the contract price to the contractor as long as labor is provided or the goods are supplied even before the contractor directly pays the wages or the price for the goods. If such reasons arise prior to the seizure of the contractor’s claim for the contract price against the contractor, the contractor may also oppose the execution creditor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da109821 Decided March 29, 2012). The lower court: (a) concluded the instant construction contract, which includes a direct payment agreement between Gyeongnam Company Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeongnam Company”); and (b) between November 11, 2013 and November 19, 2013; and (c) demanded the creditors at the construction site to directly pay money and valuables that are to be paid by the creditors at the site of the construction to the Gyeongnam Company from the Gyeongnam Company during the period between November 11, 2013 and November 19, 2013; and (b) accordingly, the instant collection order was directly delivered to the Gyeongnam Company as to KRW 989,212,032, which was directly requested until November 19, 2013, and thus, the creditors at the construction site were embodyed (realistic).