The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff completed the construction work by being awarded a contract amounting to KRW 68,877,00 for the D business ordered by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s Intervenor attached the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 55 million against the Plaintiff as the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, but the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of construction cost against the said Defendant’s Defendant was invalid as to KRW 34,292,32, which is the amount equivalent to the above construction cost. Therefore,

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant on September 24, 2019 that ordered D business ordered by the Defendant and the Defendant to KRW 68,877,00, and subsequently changed the scheduled date of completion of construction from November 29, 2019 to December 13, 2019. The Defendant’s Intervenor against the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 55 million against the Plaintiff as the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s provisional attachment (hereinafter “provisional attachment”) was issued to the Defendant on November 6, 2019 each of which was served on the Defendant on November 29, 2019.

Meanwhile, Article 88(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that "No amount equivalent to wages that a constructor shall pay to workers of the relevant construction (including subcontracted construction works) out of the contract amount of construction works he/she has contracted shall be seized." Article 88(2) of the same Act provides that "the scope and method of calculating the amount equivalent to wages under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 88(1) of the same Act delegates the specific scope and method of calculating wages subject to prohibition of seizure to Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 84(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "Article 8