1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a provisional attachment order (the amount until the claim amount is KRW 72,315,000, out of the claim for the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant, regarding the claim for the construction cost against the Defendant of the Green Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Dried Construction”); and (b) obtained a provisional attachment order (the amount until the claim amount is KRW 72,315,00, out of the claim for the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant).

Then, on October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff received a collection order (transfer of provisional seizure to provisional seizure) regarding the above claim against the Defendant of Mau Construction based on the title of execution against Mau Construction (the original copy of the judgment of the High Court Decision 2014Kadan25148 on the construction cost).

On October 20, 2014, the above seizure and collection order was served on the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 3 and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to repay the claims for seizure and collection (a seizure and collection claims) to the plaintiff who is the collection creditor of Fash Construction.

B. The right holder who is entitled to claim construction payment in relation to the construction project claimed by the Defendant as asserted by the Plaintiff does not have the right to claim construction payment. The right holder is the Corporation Ecoba doctrine (hereinafter “Ecoba doctrine”).

Even if the defendant is liable for the payment of the construction cost to the Green Construction, the debt was extinguished by the deposit for payment.

3. In order to recognize the Plaintiff’s request for judgment, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff had a claim against the Green Construction, and the Defendant was the debtor for the construction of the Green Construction based on the claim, and the Defendant was issued with a provisional seizure or seizure and collection order against the third debtor. The existence of “a claim against the Defendant of the Green Construction,” which is the object of the provisional seizure or collection order, exists.