1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the defendant received notification of the seizure of claims from the head of the competent tax office on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

B. (1) In the event that there exists a seizure and collection order as to the monetary claim, etc. against the garnishee by the debtor against the third debtor, only the execution creditor who has received the seizure and collection order pursuant to Articles 238 and 249(1) of the Civil Execution Act may file a lawsuit claiming the performance of the seized claim against the third debtor. The debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit claiming performance against the third debtor against the third debtor with respect to the claim subject to the seizure and collection order. Thus, the lawsuit for performance filed by the debtor against the claim subject to the seizure and collection order should be dismissed without any need to review and determine the merits of the lawsuit.

(2) In the event that a claim is seized in accordance with the procedure for the disposition on default as prescribed by the National Tax Collection Act and the notification of seizure is given to the obligor of the seized claim, the head of a tax office shall obtain the right to collect the claim by subrogation of the obligee who is the defaulted taxpayer, and the obligee who is the defaulted taxpayer cannot exercise the seized claim.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da67188, 2014Da67195, and Supreme Court Decision 87Da2931, Jan. 17, 1989, etc.] (2) According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the contract service cost and deposit, etc. under the instant contract and its delay damages, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 7, 2016, where the instant lawsuit is pending.