1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant (the trade name was changed to C, and the change was made as of December 27, 2017) ordered the construction period of reinforced concrete, electricity, telecommunications and machinery construction from August 10, 2015 to April 18, 2016, the construction amount of which was KRW 1,671,00,000,000 among the above GBL construction work, to the H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) after receiving a supply of a new construction work for three lots of GBL urban residential housing outside the Y-dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

The Plaintiff filed an application with Nonparty Company for the payment order of the remainder of the construction price with the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch No. 2017Guj2409, May 1, 2017, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 20,000,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original payment order to the day of complete payment. The payment order became final and conclusive on May 23, 2017.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the amount of claim KRW 20,680,195 regarding the claim amount until the amount reaches the claim amount out of the construction price claim under the instant construction contract, which the non-party company had against the Defendant, with the title of execution of the said payment order as the title of execution. On July 27, 2017, the said court issued a decision to issue the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”).

The defendant, who is the third debtor of the collection order of this case, was served with the collection order of this case on August 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Plaintiff asserted that there exists a claim subject to seizure of the collection order of this case, it is insufficient to recognize the same only with the entries of the evidence Nos. 5 and 7.