1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of pleadings:

On October 27, 2016, the Defendant received a decision of provisional seizure of real estate by the ASEAN District Court 2016Kadan447, as the ASEAN District Court, in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost against the Plaintiff.

B. On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 11,594,00 for the revocation of the execution of the provisional seizure (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”), and received a decision to revoke the execution of the provisional seizure by the above court 2016Kab29 on December 5, 2016.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for construction payment with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Gaso8567, the Asan District Court Decision 2016Daso8567.

On July 5, 2017, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment to pay to the Defendant 11,594,000 won and 15% interest per annum from November 25, 2016 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “subject judgment”). D.

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment and the Daejeon District Court 2017Na5356 case is pending in the appellate court.

E. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant received an order for seizure and assignment of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the recovery of the instant deposit against the Republic of Korea as the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2017TTT 5454 on July 27, 2017.

F. On February 26, 2018, the distribution procedure for the instant deposit was distributed in KRW 11,593,174 to the Defendant on February 26, 2018.

G. The Plaintiff filed an application for objection to the distribution and filed the instant lawsuit on March 5, 2018.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant received a subcontract for the construction work of ready-mixed and septic tanks from D, and thus, it is not possible to claim construction cost to D and claim construction cost to the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the defendant's claim was accepted in the judgment at the appellate court.