1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,482,778 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from July 2, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 as to the cause of the claim, according to Gap evidence No. 1, 2, 5, and 6, the plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter "the collection order of this case") from Suwon District Court 2017Ma210 on February 8, 2017 as to KRW 4,1760,00 among the construction costs related to the tunnel construction among the construction works of the notarial deed for the payment of debt No. 693 (Quasi-Loan for Loan) held against the defendant, which was based on the notarial Deed No. 693 (Quasi-Loan for Loan), which was executed by Eul against the defendant. Barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff within the above amount of claim.

2. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”)

A. As to the assertion that the collection order becomes null and void, the defendant and the intervenor asserted that the quasi-loan contract for consumption related to the above notarial deed prepared between the plaintiff and D is null and void as a conspiracy with the plaintiff, and accordingly, the collection order of this case also becomes null and void. However, even if the above quasi-loan contract is null and void, and the plaintiff does not have a claim against D, the non-existence of such execution claim does not constitute a defense by the defendant, who is the garnishee, in the lawsuit of collection objection, in the lawsuit of collection, as the execution debtor, in the lawsuit of collection, as the defense (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da13781, Sept. 24, 1996). The above argument by the defendant and the intervenor is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on the invalidation of the collection order, the intervenor asserted that the effect of the collection order of this case was extinguished as the plaintiff obtained the whole order based on the same execution claim after the collection order of this case was issued.