1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had an executory exemplification of the judgment based on the loan case, Daejeon District Court 2003Kadan3956 against the Chungcheong Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dail Construction”).

(B) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Chungcheong Construction (hereinafter “instant judgment bond”).

The Plaintiff filed an application with the Daejeon District Court for the seizure and collection order of the claim to transfer the provisional seizure of 2012TTTT 7348 to the seizure of the provisional seizure of the provisional seizure of 2012TTT 7348 with respect to the claim for the construction of Suwon apartment construction (hereinafter “instant seizure claim”) with the Defendant as the debtor, the Defendant as the garnishee, and the claim amounting to KRW 928,118,046, which is KRW 928,118,046, which is the Defendant. On June 1, 2012, the application for the above order was accepted as follows:

(1) The Daejeon District Court Order 2001Kadan11941 (hereinafter “the provisional seizure order of this case”) between the creditor and debtor is the provisional seizure order of this case.

2) The third obligor shall not pay the above claims to the obligor by transferring the amount of 300,000,000 won which has been seized by the provisional attachment to the provisional attachment and the remaining amount of 628,118,046 won shall not be seized.

3) The obligor is prohibited from disposing of and receiving the above claim. C. The instant collection order was served on June 7, 2012 on the Defendant. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds of recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. We examine whether the seized claim in this case exists.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the construction cost is several times as follows: (i) with the defendant on Nov. 26, 1998, the construction cost (which is the seized claim of this case as mentioned above) jointly with the lux Construction Co., Ltd. for the construction work of the lux apartment as ordered by the defendant on Nov. 26, 1998.