1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant: (a) KRW 7,001,100, and as to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from April 3, 2014 to July 15, 2015.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged by the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and by the purport of the entire pleadings, or are remarkable in this court:

Around 2013, the Defendant subcontracted the instant construction work to C with respect to the vessel block (hereinafter “instant construction”) contracted by the SP shipbuilding corporation.

B. The Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 7,001,100 among the instant construction payment claims against the Defendant under the Changwon District Court Branch 2013Kadan1685 (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”). The instant provisional attachment order was served on August 22, 2013 by the Defendant.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for payment of wages with the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch 2013 Ghana116, and the decision of performance recommendation made by the said court became final and conclusive on November 6, 2013.

Based on the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation, the Plaintiff transferred the instant provisional seizure to the original seizure to the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch 2013TTTT 5385, and additionally seized KRW 575,433, out of the instant construction cost claims, and received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) that the seized claims may be collected, and the instant seizure and collection order was served to the Defendant on November 20, 2013.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received the instant seizure and collection order as to KRW 7,576,53 of the instant construction price claim against the Defendant C, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the said money to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant had already paid the instant provisional attachment payment to C before receiving the instant provisional attachment order, and there was no further payment of the construction payment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the collection of the instant provisional attachment is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. First, the part acknowledged is examined as to KRW 7,001,100, the amount of seized claims at the time of the provisional seizure in this case.

The defendant subcontracted the instant construction work to C around 2013.