1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the same day “the same day” as “the June 24, 2014”; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (2) to the judgment on the assertion emphasized by the defendant in this court; and (c) thus, they are cited pursuant

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that, at the time of delivery of the instant order of seizure and collection, multiple contracts were concluded between the Defendant and the Sejong General Construction, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the claims to be seized were specified solely by indicating the claims subject to seizure. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a contract for construction works other than the construction contract for the warehouse of this case between the Defendant and the Sejong General Construction. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Although the defendant asserts that there is no claim against the plaintiff's detailed construction, the absence or extinguishment of the execution claim does not constitute a ground for refusing the repayment of the execution obligation by the defendant, who is the garnishee, claiming it as a defense in the lawsuit of collection in which the execution obligor would have asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994). The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.