1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of the construction cost (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da30393) and paid KRW 43,107,051 to the Defendant on July 2, 2013; however, in nine installments, the Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 as at the end of each month from July 31, 2013 to February 28, 2014, and KRW 3,107,051 as at March 31, 2014, respectively. If the Plaintiff delays the payment of the said amount at one time, the unpaid amount shall be immediately lost the benefit of the period, and the unpaid amount shall be paid at once, and the adjustment was established, including the payment of delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of delay to the day of complete payment.

B. On August 23, 2016, the Defendant, as the Incheon District Court Decision 2016TTB2076, issued a claim for the principal and damages for delay equivalent to KRW 68,946,527 based on the above conciliation protocol, with the Plaintiff’s claim for execution of the claim, such as the principal and damages for delay, etc. under the said conciliation protocol, and received an order of seizure and assignment of the claim regarding the cost of soil works and incidental civil works among the construction works for the construction works for the reason for the reason for the delivery of the reason for delivery to the non-party, the Defendant, as the debtor, was served on August 26, 2016, and became final and conclusive on October 5, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, the seized claim shall naturally be transferred to all creditors within the scope of the execution claim retroactively from the time when the assignment order was served on the garnishee, and at the same time the extinction of the execution claim takes effect. The same applies to cases where the seized claim contains an ambiguous element of the existence and scope of the execution claim, and there is no benefit to seek non-permission of compulsory execution by means of a lawsuit demanding objection after the creditor's satisfaction as a result of the termination of compulsory execution.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on April 25, 1997