2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 55% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

A. Defendant △△△○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was awarded a contract with Nonparty Co., Ltd. for advertising agency and promotional services (hereinafter “instant services”) from Nonparty Co., Ltd., and was not paid KRW 47,278,440 from Nonparty Co., Ltd. until March 2013.

B. The plaintiff (the jurisdictional jurisdiction of the plaintiff) has a national tax claim against the defendant company, and the defendant's business of recommending a model suitable for advertisement and protocol, and managing and supervising the model with the name of "Dolsan", which is a business of recommending the model suitable for advertisement and protocol, depending on the need of the advertiser, and the defendant blocks had the Dol, which is managed by the defendant's company from June 2010 to September 2012, the defendant blocks, upon the request of the defendant company, distribute samples of the non-party company to the non-party company at the food sales business place in the city and investigating whether the products are displayed,

C. On January 3, 2013, in order to collect the delinquent tax amount of KRW 56,971,980, the Plaintiff, based on Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, seized the amount of claims against the non-party company, among the claims against the non-party company, until the delinquent tax amount, and notified the seizure thereof, and the notification was reached to the non-party company on January 9, 2013. Meanwhile, the notification was reached on January 9, 2013. Meanwhile, the defendant Manton was a partial subcontractor of the service of this case, and the defendant company, the principal contractor, claimed that the non-party company, who was the owner of the service of this case, would have been paid the amount of KRW 67,465,789, which was not paid by the defendant company, and the notification was reached on January 9, 2013.

D. On March 11, 2013, the non-party company deposited KRW 47,278,440 as to the defendant company pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit of this case") on the ground that the defendant company, the defendant company, the defendant, the defendant, and the plaintiff determined as Yxxxx of 20x year 20x, on the ground that the notification of the seizure of the plaintiff's claim cannot be grasped by having reached the direct claim of dives and the plaintiff's notification of seizure of the claim.

[Grounds for Recognition] Defendant Company: Confession

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

1) The Plaintiff’s attachment notification reached the company outside the lawsuit on January 9, 2013, when it is unclear whether the cause for direct claim for the payment of service charges against the non-party company outside the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor at the time of direct claim for payment of the service charges, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the instant deposit return belongs to the Plaintiff who subrogated the Defendant

2) The service entrustment stipulated in Article 2(11) of the Subcontract Act is limited to the case where the same kind of business is subcontracted to the same business operator. The defendant balknum is engaged in another type of business that is different from the defendant company that operates an advertising business by operating human resources supply business

(b) Defendant Madle;

1) The Defendant Company paid 16 out of 26 parts of the subcontract amount to Defendant 00 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

2) The content of Defendant 1’s business constitutes an advertising business or advertising agency business, which distributes the sample of advertising materials or conducts market research, etc. to establish advertising strategies.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant Company becomes insolvent on January 9, 2013

Article 14 (1) of the former Subcontract Act (amended by Act No. 12709, May 28, 2014) provides that "Where any of the following causes occurs and the subcontractor requests a direct payment of the subcontract price equivalent to the portion manufactured, repaired, constructed, or provided services, the subcontractor shall pay it directly to the subcontractor." As one of the reasons under subparagraph 1, "if the principal contractor becomes unable to pay the subcontract price because the suspension of payment, bankruptcy, other similar causes exist or the permission, authorization, license, registration, etc. of the principal contractor is revoked, the principal contractor's right to seek the direct payment of the subcontract price has occurred to the ordering person, i.e., whether the principal contractor is unable to pay the subcontract price due to the suspension of payment, bankruptcy or any other similar causes, etc., the expression of intent of the subcontractor to request the direct payment should be determined at the time when the principal contractor reaches the ordering person, i.e., where the payment becomes impossible, the term "in this case" refers to the case where the debtor is unable to pay immediately due to the debtor.

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 본 증거, 을나 1, 5, 6, 7호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고 이◎◎은 2010. 6.경부터 2012. 9.경까지 피고 회사로부터26건의 용역을 위탁받아 자신이 관리하는 도우미들을 피고 회사가 지정하는 장소로 보내어 견본 배포 등의 용역을 수행하였음에도 용역대금의 일부를 지급받지 못한 사실,피고 회사는 납부기한이 2012. 9. 30.인 정기분 부가가치세 23,019,460원을 납부하지못하였고, 2012. 10. 26. 대표이사가 변경되면서 피고 이◎◎에게 2012. 9.분까지의 미지급 용역대금 58,049,789원을 2012. 12. 20., 2013. 1. 20., 2013. 2. 20. 3회에 걸쳐 분할변제 하겠다는 변제계획서를 보냈으나 이행하지 못한 사실, 그러자 피고 이은성은 피고 회사를 상대로 피고 회사가 인정하는 금액 외에 누락된 용역대금을 합한67,542,789원의 용역대금의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고(■■지방법원20xx차xxx), 피고 이◎◎의 신청을 모두 인용한 지급명령이 2013. 1. 18. 발령되어2013. 2. 19. 피고 회사에게 송달되고 2013. 3. 6. 확정된 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고 회사는 2013. 1. 9.경 피고 회사는 피고 이◎◎에 대한 변제능력이 부족하여 즉시 변제하여야 할 채무를 일반적・계속적으로 변제할 수 없는 객관적 상태에 이르렀다고 보여 피고 이◎◎의 소외 회사에 대한 용역대금의 직접 지급청구는 적법하므로 피고 이◎◎은 2013. 1. 9. 소외 회사에 대한 용역대금 직접청구권을 취득하였다.

B. Whether the defendant is engaged in advertising business or advertising agency business

In full view of the contents and images of the evidence Eul 2 and 3, the defendant Lee Man-hee distributed advertising materials or samples of products, such as △△, produced by the non-party company to the non-party company for the performance of the service subcontracted by the defendant company. The non-party company conducted a market survey on whether the products of the non-party company are sold, the place of display, the condition of display, etc., and reported the result to the defendant company. The defendant company did not raise an objection that the above defendant company exceeded the scope of the subcontracted service provided by the non-party company. According to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, considering that the distribution of advertising materials and samples is an advertising business, the market survey and advertising planning agency business related to the advertisement can be used as basic materials for establishing the advertising strategy in the future, it is deemed that the defendant Man-tae was engaged in the advertising business or advertising agency business, which is the same type of business as the defendant company under the Subcontract Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. The scope of the Plaintiff’s right to deposit of this case

1) Relevant legal principles

The effect of seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act prohibits an obligee and obligor subject to seizure from performing all acts of disposal, such as repayment and collection of claims, and allows the State to collect claims on behalf of a delinquent taxpayer. As such, a garnishee cannot repay claims subject to seizure to a delinquent taxpayer, and only can it be performed to a State that is a collection authority (Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686 delivered on May 14, 199).

According to Article 14(2) of the former Subcontract Act, if a cause under paragraph (1) of the same Article occurs, the obligation of the ordering person to pay the price to the principal contractor and the obligation of the principal contractor to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor shall be deemed extinguished within the scope of the said obligation. As such, the obligation of the principal contractor to pay the price to the principal contractor corresponding to the portion for which the ordering person is liable for direct payment is transferred to the subcontractor without maintaining the identity of the principal contractor’s claim to the ordering person. In addition, the highest order between the transferee of a claim and the person who issued a provisional attachment or seizure order for the same claim is determined by the date the notice of assignment of claim with the fixed date has been delivered to the debtor, and by the date the original copy of the decision of provisional attachment or seizure order has been delivered to the third debtor, and if the sum of the amount of the claim acquired with the same order and the amount of the claim seized or attached exceeds the amount of claim to the third debtor, the obligation shall be settled internally in accordance with the equitable principle (see, e

2) As to the instant case, the notice of seizure to collect the amount of 56,971,980 won in arrears and the notice of the claim for direct payment of the amount of 64,465,789 won in the order of priority on January 9, 2013 and the notice of the claim for direct payment of 64,465,789 won in the order of priority on the part of the Defendant Company cannot be deemed to have been given priority on either the Plaintiff’s right to collect the seized claim and the Defendant Company’s right to claim direct payment. The sum of the amount of 56,971,980 won in arrears against the Plaintiff Company and the amount of 64,465,789 won in the amount of 124,437,769 won in the amount of 56,47,278,440 won in arrears and the amount of claims acquired by the Defendant Company and the amount of claims seized or seized exceeds the amount of claims against the Defendant Company.

Meanwhile, in a case where the obligor sought confirmation that one of the deposited parties has the right to claim the return of deposit against the other deposited parties by depositing the deposited parties on the ground that it is impossible for the obligor to know who is true creditor, whether the deposited parties have the right to claim the return of deposit as a genuine creditor should be determined on the basis of who can exercise the original claim in the legal relationship between the deposited parties and the deposited parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da27049, May 17, 2017). Of the instant deposited amount, KRW 21,645,729, based on the ratio of the Plaintiff’s collection right to the sum of the amount of the claim of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Madle, 47,278,440 x 56,971,980 ± 56,971,980 ± 67,675,789, and 789).

D. Sub-committee

Of the instant deposit money, the Plaintiff and the Defendants claimed KRW 21,645,729 from the Plaintiff. As long as the Defendant Edives file a dispute over the scope of attribution of the instant claim for the payment of the deposit amount, the Plaintiff may have a profit to confirm it (the scope of the right to claim the payment of deposit is subject to legal evaluation, and it is not subject to confession, and thus the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant company is consistent with the claim and conclusion regarding the

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit.