1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2018, the Plaintiff received a claim amounting to the non-party company’s claim amounting to KRW 86,940,000 with respect to the non-party company’s claim amounting to KRW 86,940,00, based on the executory order of the payment order in the case of construction cost payment against the non-party company C (hereinafter “non-party company”).

B. In the collection order of this case, the seized claim is indicated as “the claim amounting to KRW 86,940,000,000. However, the claim to be returned by the non-party company from the defendant. The claim is indicated as “the above claim claim amount out of the construction work remainder for the building project contract for the building building of the non-party company and the defendant, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D underground, the fourth floor, the first floor of the apartment tower, and the first floor of the Incheon

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the defendant is obligated to pay 86,940,000 won to the plaintiff based on the collection order of this case and delay damages for the collection. The non-party company has no ability to repay the debt to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to claim payment of 86,940,000 won among the claim for construction payment against the non-party company's defendant on behalf of the non-party company which is insolvent based on the creditor's subrogation right.

B. (1) In a case where there is a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim that determines the primary claim, this is only the right to collect a monetary claim against a third party obligor in a compulsory execution procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da73490, Mar. 9, 2001). Accordingly, the existence of a claim against a third party obligor is not confirmed, and thus, the collection obligee is liable to prove the existence of a claim against a third party obligor in a lawsuit claiming the collection amount.