1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 170,741,095 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 22, 2018 to the date of full payment.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the judgment of the plaintiff as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter "the collection order of this case") from the Gwangju District Court 2018TTB as to KRW 170,741,095, out of the agreed amount claims based on the F/C performance agreement of November 3, 2015 against the defendant, by the notary public of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E") as the claim claim under the F/C No. 322, which was executed by the notary public of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), and the collection order of this case was delivered to the defendant on January 15, 2018.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, the amount of KRW 170,741,095, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 22, 2018 to the date of full payment, following the day of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, to the day of full payment.

The defendant's assertion that the defendant violated the non-assignment agreement as to the defendant's assertion that he did not know or know of the above non-assignment agreement, on November 3, 2015, the defendant agreed to pay back obligations between E and other creditors in order to prevent the collection or seizure of claims by other creditors, and the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff's claim for the collection of claims in this case is unjustifiable.

Even if there was a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, this only grants the execution creditor the right to collect the claim against the third debtor in the course of compulsory execution, and this does not mean that the claim held by the debtor against the third debtor is transferred or reverted to the execution creditor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da54300, Mar. 14, 1997). Moreover, even if the parties have a special agreement on the prohibition of transfer between the parties, it is subject to the attachment and assignment order.