1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff's defendants 56,407.

1. This part of the judgment of this court is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where "840,670,00 won" in the part of "1. Basic Facts" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "840,675,000 won" in the part of "1. Basic Facts"

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As the Plaintiff’s obligee’s seizure and collection order was issued against the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff lost its standing to file a performance suit against the claim for construction cost, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(b) If there exists a seizure and collection order against the relevant statutory claims, only the collection obligee may institute a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to institute a lawsuit for performance against the seized claims;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Da220178 Decided July 20, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da220178, Jul. 20, 2018). Meanwhile, where the provisional seizure was executed after the provisional seizure was executed and the provisional seizure was executed as a result of the execution of the provisional seizure, it has the same effect as the execution of the principal from the beginning by being included in the principal execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma950, Nov. 30, 2010). An order of seizure of claims takes effect upon delivery to a third obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2010Ma950, Nov. 30, 2010). Such seizure

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1587 decided May 28, 2015, etc.). C.

Judgment

1) The following facts are recognized in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 in this Court or the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments. A) H as of August 18, 2017, U.S. District Court 2017Kadan2167, against each of the construction payment claims that the Plaintiff would receive from the Defendants, 56,407,665 won.