1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 38.5 million for construction cost against D (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da31394) and rendered a favorable judgment against D on November 2, 2015, and D filed an appeal against the said judgment (No. 2016Na57230) but the judgment dismissing the appeal became final and conclusive on April 20, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff, with regard to the claim amounting to KRW 38,50,000 as the claim amount, received a seizure and collection order against the claim amounting to KRW 38,50,000 from the Jung-gu District Court High Court Order 2017TTT 5543 as the claim amount.

C. The Defendant issued a provisional attachment of the claim amounting to KRW 27,544,00 as the claim amounting to KRW 27,50,000 (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”) against D’s garnishee as the High Government District Court 2017Kadan5075 (Seoul High Court 2017Kadan5075).

D’s deposit of KRW 38,50,000 against a third party debtor, on October 26, 2017, the distribution schedule was formulated in order to distribute KRW 16,092,526 to the Defendant, who is the provisional attachment authority, and to distribute KRW 22,493,545 to the Plaintiff, who is the collection authority, as a result of the distribution procedure C branch court of Goyang-gu District Court. (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the full amount of the distribution to the Defendant, and on October 31, 2017, which was seven days thereafter, filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As seen below, the Defendant’s claim based on the contract of this case was subject to the prescription period as stipulated in the Civil Act based on the provisional seizure date of this case, extinctive prescription has expired.

B. Although the defendant did not deliver an amount equivalent to the amount stipulated in the contract of this case, the provisional seizure of this case was made in collusion with D for the purpose of obstructing the plaintiff's debt collection.

C. Therefore, the instant distribution schedule is written in the purport of the claim.