1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the price of goods and damages for delay pursuant to a contract for the supply of goods concluded with the Defendant from September 20, 2016 to November 24, 2017. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the total amount of KRW 2,202,398,337, and received KRW 1,914,430,000 from the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining price of the goods to the plaintiff (hereinafter "the price of the goods in this case") 287,968,337 won and delay damages.

B. Although the Defendant did not conclude an advisory contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant received a total of KRW 140,000,000 from September 1, 2016 to December 16, 2016 as advisory fees, even though the Defendant did not conclude an advisory contract with the Plaintiff.

As such, the Defendant gains a profit equivalent to KRW 140,00,000 without any legal ground, and as a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned unjust enrichment (hereinafter “the instant unjust enrichment”) KRW 140,00,000, and delay damages.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that there was a seizure and collection order as to the price of the goods in this case, its delay damages claim, the unjust enrichment in this case, and its delay damages claim, and thus, the Plaintiff lost its standing to file a lawsuit seeking performance based on the above claims.

B. Legal doctrine 1) When an order of seizure and collection is issued, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a performance lawsuit against the claims subject to seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888, Apr. 11, 200). 2) The creditor who files an application for an order of seizure against the claims subject to seizure must clarify the type and amount of the claims subject to seizure (see Articles 225 and 291 of the Civil Execution Act). In particular, when applying for an order of seizure only for part of the claims subject to seizure, the scope thereof shall be clearly stated.