1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Of the instant construction price claims, KRW 59,536,200, which falls under the wages of the instant trade workers in this case, constitutes a claim subject to prohibition of seizure pursuant to Article 88(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. However, on October 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) KRW 145,290,000, out of the accounts payable to the instant construction price payment of this case for the instant trade in this case 340,610,360 at the time of October 14, 2013 (i) KRW 59,536,200, KRW 85,753,80, which

1) The instant provisional attachment Nos. 43,753,800 won Nos. 2 A 8,400,000 won Nos. 32 and 8,400,000 won, other than the attachment Nos. 8,200,000 won Nos. 4 C, and other attachment Nos. 25,200,360 won, should be paid only within the scope of 44,357,350 won (=239,67,710 won - 195,320,360 won). However, the instant provisional attachment Nos. 1 paid 239,67,710 won to this case’s trade in 195,360 won.

The above 44,357,350 won reimbursement cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is the collection right holder.

2) At the time of September 16, 2013, the claim for construction price against the Defendant in this case’s trade in this case’s increased amount of KRW 85,753,80,00 in total, the Defendant deposited an amount of at least KRW 85,753,80,00 in the execution deposit. However, the Defendant thereafter deposited only KRW 41,396,450, excluding the pertinent amount, on the ground that the Defendant was directly paid wages to the employees of this case’s trade in this case’s trade in this case’s 4,357,350 (i.e., KRW 85,753,80 - KRW 41,396,450) as of September 16, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot set up against the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, under the seizure and collection order of this case, after deducting the amount of the seized amount of KRW 43,753,800 in the collection procedure under the collection order from the Plaintiff’s deposit for dividends.