1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for KRW 97,789,790 and damages for delay shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts - The plaintiff arranged for the conclusion of a subcontract between the defendant and B, and tried to change the amount of the settlement agreement between the defendant and B from KRW 1,679,70,000 to KRW 2,269,30,000 after the completion of construction.

The Defendant paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff in return for such payment. Of them, the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and the remainder KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff until January 15, 2016, prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) on December 28, 2015.

The instant loan certificate states to the effect that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on December 28, 2015 without molding it.”

(hereinafter) According to the above agreement, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”). On the other hand, in order to collect KRW 61,789,790 of the Plaintiff’s amount of national tax in arrears on April 5, 2017, the head of Song District Tax Office attached “the amount equivalent to the above amount of national tax in arrears (including additional charges added thereto) among the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant (including interest on the principal and interest accrued after the loan) on December 28, 2015, and around that time, the notice of attachment was served to the Defendant -

In addition, the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2017TTT 7737, July 12, 2017, C received a claim attachment and collection order as to KRW 36,000,000 among the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Defendant, and served the Defendant with the above claim attachment and collection order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, Eul 9, 10 each entry

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part claiming KRW 97,789,790 among the instant lawsuit and damages for delay

A. When there exists a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, etc. against a garnishee by the debtor in the relevant legal doctrine, only the execution creditor who received the seizure and collection order pursuant to Articles 238 and 249(1) of the Civil Execution Act may file a lawsuit claiming the performance of the seized claim against the garnishee, and the debtor has a seizure and collection order.