1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s successor’s application for intervention in succession filed by this court, is as follows.

1. The basic facts and the plaintiff's assertion in this part are identical to the part of "1. basic facts" and "2.3 plaintiff's assertion" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that "the partial claim is part of the expenses of this case 27,30,000 won, which could have been earned upon completion of the construction contract of this case" and "the total of KRW 173,700,000, etc., which could have been earned upon completion of the construction contract of this case" are identical to the part of "1.3,70,000" and "the plaintiff's assertion of this case" in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In the Plaintiff’s claim, where there exists a seizure and collection order regarding the claim of the succeeding intervenor L 1) among the claims, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The obligor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the claims subject to seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da23888, Apr. 11, 200; 2010Da4044, Apr. 28, 2011). Meanwhile, where the third obligor indicated as the seized claim the amount to be paid to the obligor according to the judgment, the claim under the substantive law, which is the object of the lawsuit, becomes the object of the seizure and collection order. Ultimately, the seizure and collection order issued by the obligee, which is effective against the Defendant, which is the object of the lawsuit, and thus, it should be deemed that the above collection order has been issued to the Plaintiff, and that it extends to KRW 2010Da404444, Jun. 28, 2018; 2016Da3616368686, etc.

3.2