1. The Plaintiff’s collection order against the Defendant is based on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2013TTT 20136 and the collection order.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 21, 2013, the Defendant received the order, seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) as to “the money until it reaches KRW 229,382,736,00,000, from among the construction price claims against the Plaintiff and Alley 229,382,736,000, based on the subcontract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the third obligor as the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Alley fluss (hereinafter “Blus”) on the part of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Ga3762, supra, regarding New Daily Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Daily”).

B. The instant collection order was served on the Plaintiff on June 26, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim is that there is no claim for construction price against the Plaintiff of New Daily Construction, which is the claim subject to seizure of the collection order of this case, and there is no claim for collection against the Defendant according to the collection order of this case.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's defense does not exercise the right of collection according to the collection order of this case against the plaintiff. Thus, it is difficult to view the legal status of the plaintiff as dangerous due to the collection order of this case. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant received the instant collection order by designating the Plaintiff and AlleyM Pus as the debtor for the construction of New Daily, and the Plaintiff as the third party debtor. As long as the instant collection order becomes effective, the Plaintiff may be subject to the lawsuit, etc. against the Defendant for the collection claim based on the instant collection order. Therefore, it may be deemed that there exists a risk of present in the legal status of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant may have the right to collect against the Plaintiff.