1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,313,149 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 6, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking wage payment against the seeds information and communications company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 38,622,569 and delay damages therefrom, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(B) Jeonju District Court 2017Kadan13825).

On October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (the Jeonju District Court 2017TTT 8217) against the non-party company’s claim for construction price against the non-party company’s defendant, based on the aforementioned final judgment, with the debtor, the defendant as the third debtor, the claim amounting to KRW 43,313,149, and the aforementioned order was served on the defendant on October 26, 2017.

C. As of October 26, 2017, the Defendant’s obligation to pay construction cost to Nonparty Company is KRW 62.2 million.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, the overall purport of pleading]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 43,313,149 according to the above collection order, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from July 6, 2018 to the date of complete payment, which is obvious after the date of service of the copy of the written complaint sought by the Plaintiff, as the date of service of the collection order.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff’s execution claim was more excessive than the actual claim, but the absence or extinguishment of the execution claim is not a defense by the Defendant, who is the garnishee, in the lawsuit of collection in the lawsuit of collection of the grounds for the obligor’s claim in the lawsuit of objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994). The Defendant’s allegation in this regard is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.