1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The facts without any dispute. According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 1, in the compulsory execution procedure for corporeal movables of the non-party Jinsung Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Jinsung Development"), the court of the auction on August 26, 2013, prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case") with the content that the defendant would distribute 24,959,492 won as the seizure right holder, and 35,607,653 won as the provisional seizure right holder to the plaintiff each of the dividends of 35,65,653 won as the provisional seizure rights holder, and the defendant was issued a payment order for construction materials rent of 150,972,180 won and delayed payment damages against Jinsung Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "instant payment order") on April 19, 2013 and confirmed on May 11, 2013.

2. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the original copy of the instant payment order shall be corrected as stated in the purport of the purport of the claim, inasmuch as the development was confirmed by the seizure and assignment order as to the claim for construction price against the non-party joint construction company (hereinafter referred to as the "joint construction"), and the claim on the instant payment order is extinguished.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant may recognize the fact that the original copy of the payment order in this case was served for the development of truth on May 20, 2013 and that the above assignment order became final and conclusive on June 1, 2013, on the part of the Busan District Court 2013TTTT No. 2012399, the original copy of the payment order in this case, issued a seizure and assignment order (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer order in this case") with respect to the claim for construction payment against the construction for pair-ran.

However, if an assignment order has become final and conclusive, the effect of performance of an obligation that the obligor considers to discharge does not occur if the transferred obligation does not exist, and No. 7-1.