1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2011, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 46,209,394 with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Kadan4406, the Defendant as the debtor, and the third debtor, and received the provisional attachment order of KRW 46,209,394, and the said provisional attachment order reached the Defendant on May 23, 2011.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming construction price against C as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da148428, and received a favorable judgment in the amount equivalent to the above provisional seizure amount, and received the above court’s order of seizure and collection, which transferred the provisional seizure to the provisional seizure as the above court’s order of seizure and collection.

C. On the other hand, around November 2010, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with C on the second floor housing of 1.3 billion won on the ground of the wife population D at the time of acceptance to C, and on May 2012, 2012, the Defendant did not proceed with the construction any longer.

5.9. Termination of the passbook for the payment of the construction price to the above company;

5. 13. The above Company received a letter of waiver of construction work from the above Company and agreed upon the construction work.

Until the above construction work is terminated, the construction cost paid to the above company was KRW 981.5 million.

E. After the completion of construction works, the Defendant entered into an individual contract with nine companies and carried out the said construction works.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3

2. On May 23, 201, on which the provisional attachment decision of this case was delivered to the Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed that the construction work amount should be paid in excess of 2/3 even though the construction work rate of the above company was 50%, and even thereafter, the above company continued to work and received construction payment from the Defendant, and thus, the provisional attachment should be paid. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence. Rather, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, since it is acknowledged that there was an agreement between the above company and the Defendant prior to the delivery of the provisional attachment decision.