1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D is dismissed.

2. Defendant C shall be the Plaintiff.

1. We examine the legality of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant company ex officio, who is disqualified as a party under the collection order.

A. On November 12, 2015, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff was pending in the instant lawsuit, on the basis of each authentic deed with the executory power under Articles 359 and 417, prepared by the notary public against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2015, and designated the Plaintiff as the obligor, the Defendant Company, the third obligor, and the seized claim as “the amount up to KRW 2,368,821,918 out of the judgment amount in this case which the Plaintiff had against the Defendant Company,” each of which was determined as the obligor, the third obligor, and the seized claim as “the amount up to KRW 2,368,821,918 out of the judgment amount in this case which the Plaintiff had against the Defendant Company.” The above seizure and collection order was issued on November 16, 2015, and may be recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. If the attachment and collection order is issued, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the obligor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008; 2009Da85717, Feb. 25, 2010). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the Defendant Company.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant Company is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s claim as to the Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive claim against the Defendant is deemed to include only the larger amount in total.

2. Judgment on the grounds of primary claim against the Defendants

A. On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”)’s summary of the assertion is the construction and construction of the Plaintiff’s land building from the Defendants, Nam-gu, Incheon, E-gu, 2,415 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and its subsequent ground commercial buildings.