1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

The Defendant contracted with the Corporation A (hereinafter referred to as the “A”), among the construction works of Gwangju Northern-gu B and multi-household tenements, to perform the construction works of Saturdays, reinforced concrete construction works, and water supply and sewerage construction works (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant construction works”). On September 17, 2012, the Defendant subcontracted each of the instant construction works to the Daeho Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Daho Development”).

On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff re-subcontracted the waterproof Repair and Repair Work for each of the above multi-households in KRW 15,000,000 for the construction cost, and completed the waterproof Repair and Repair Work.

On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 11,500,000 out of the cost of the relevant waterproof and Repair Works (Seoul District Court 2015Dada21386), and obtained a favorable judgment on August 26, 2015. Accordingly, on October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the Gwangju District Court 2015TT District Court 2000, and filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the debtor against the Defendant who is the third debtor, the debtor was the third debtor, and received the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) regarding KRW 12,237,260, out of the cost of the construction of new buildings in Gwangju-gu B and C located D located at the same time. The above seizure and collection order were served to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the provisional number), the parties' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion first, the plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to each of the construction price claims of this case where the plaintiff's substitute development is against the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff as the collection creditor the amount of KRW 12,237,260.

Second, around January 4, 2014, A received the warranty bond of KRW 42 million from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and the defendant and the substitute development did not pay the warranty bond of KRW 42 million.