1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

Even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined together with the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for construction price against the defendant of the company abroad, which constitutes the seized claim, is insufficient to prove.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the following reasons shall be added thereto.

The reasons for the addition are the collection of the claim for the construction price against the defendant of the non-party company, and the fact that the decision of provisional seizure against the plaintiff A's claim is delivered to the defendant on October 31, 2012, and on November 6, 2012, respectively, on the provisional seizure order of the plaintiff B's claim is delivered to the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant paid all the construction cost to the non-party company's flag dismissal until September 30, 2012, and directly operated the construction from October 2012. At the time of completion of the completion of the construction, the non-party company's partner company directly paid the construction cost and performed the construction work to the non-party company's partner company at the time of the completion of the completion of the construction at the time, and the non-party company's claim for the construction cost against the non-party company subject to provisional attachment and

However, in light of these arguments and the following facts acknowledged by this court, the defendant paid money to the partner company of the non-party company in relation to the instant construction project on December 28, 2012, or the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, even after the delivery of the provisional attachment order against the plaintiffs to the non-party company, the defendant still remains at the construction price to be paid

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the non-party company had a claim for the construction cost additionally received from the defendant by actually performing the construction work even after October 2012.