1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition or replacement of the following. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third 4,5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows.

Therefore, the defendant appealed on September 1, 2014, but the judgment of dismissal was rendered on September 16, 2015 by Gwangju High Court 2014Na3428 and became final and conclusive as it is.

The following parts shall be added to the third 12th written judgment of the first instance:

After February 3, 2015, in the case of the distribution procedure for the Plaintiff’s deposit, the Gwangju District Court received dividends of KRW 57,635,410, dividend interest of KRW 51,937, and KRW 7,100, respectively.

The 3th written judgment of the first instance court is the 15th written evidence of the 13th written judgment.

The 5th decision of the first instance court is not more than 17th decision as follows.

B. However, the development of the light industry, which is the creditor of provisional seizure, started provisional execution on the Defendant's claim for construction price, preserved by the provisional seizure No. 2 of this case, by receiving a seizure and collection order, and the Plaintiff deposited for execution under Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act. We further examine whether the Defendant obtained double acquisition as to the corresponding amount.

If a garnishee makes a deposit under Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act due to the seizure of a monetary claim, the monetary claim against the garnishee, who is the original seized claim due to the effect of the repayment of obligation due to the deposit, shall be extinguished, and the effect thereof may be asserted against the execution creditor, etc.

On the other hand, the effect of repayment due to provisional execution is not conclusive, but it takes place under the condition that the declaration of provisional execution or the cancellation of the judgment on the merits is cancelled in the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da26175 delivered on October 8, 1993, etc.). We examine the case, and the Defendant’s construction payment from the Plaintiff on March 21, 2013.