The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the priority relationship between rights (ground of appeal No. 12345)

(a) When a seizure and collection order has been issued against a monetary claim, the garnishee may oppose the execution creditor by any reason which can oppose the seizure debtor before the claim is seized;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da43819, Mar. 27, 2001; 2005Da41917, Jan. 26, 2006). Where a contractor and a contractor agree to pay directly the contractor’s wages to the contractor’s workers or the cost of goods necessary for the contractor’s business to the contractor’s customers within the scope of the contract price to be paid to the contractor, the contractor may refuse to pay the contract price to the contractor, even before the direct payment of the said wages or goods.

If this cause has occurred before the attachment of the contract price claim against the contractor, the contractor may also oppose the execution creditor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109821, Mar. 29, 2012). (B)

The judgment below

According to the reasons, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On April 5, 2013, the Korea Water Resources Corporation concluded a contract for construction work that contracts construction cost of KRW 3,628,600,000 to the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “the Korea Water Resources Corporation”) without distinguishing both before and after the commencement and completion of rehabilitation procedures, the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “the Korea Water Resources Corporation”) and the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “the Korea Water Resources Corporation”) with the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “the Korea Water Resources Corporation”) to contract construction cost of KRW 3,628,60,000

On November 25, 2013, the Korea Water Resources Corporation and the above companies changed the construction cost of the instant contract into KRW 4.1 billion.

(2) On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff moved to Dongdong Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dongdong Construction”), and the “Ugsan Industrial Waterworks Domsan-Pool Pool Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dongdong Construction”).