추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
Around September 20, 2014, Nonparty 1, a Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was awarded a contract for the construction cost of KRW 795,00,000 among the construction works for “afforging apartment for fisheries” in the 420-41 Sinnam-Eup, Hayang-gu, Hayang-gu, the Defendant, for the construction work for “afforging apartment for fisheries” (hereinafter “instant construction”).
The Plaintiff was ordered by the Ulsan District Court No. 2015 tea826 to pay the amount of goods to Nonparty Company KRW 65,619,115.
On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff provisionally attached KRW 65,619,115, out of the claims based on the instant construction work against the Defendant by the non-party company (hereinafter “instant construction work payment claims”) as the Ulsan District Court 2015Kadan913 on the basis of the original copy of the above payment order, and the said provisional attachment order was served on the Defendant on April 20, 2015.
On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order to transfer KRW 66,763,062 of the instant construction cost claim from the District Court 2015TTTTT508, to the original seizure. The said order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, and became final and conclusive on May 4, 2015.
On April 30, 2015, the non-party company and the non-party company agreed to terminate the instant construction work with the Defendant, and settled the construction cost to be paid to the Defendant up to the time, as KRW 390,00,000.
【In light of the above-mentioned facts as to the grounds for the claim as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff received the order of seizure and collection as to KRW 66,763,062 of the construction price claim of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above 66,763,062 and delay damages.
The main issue of the Defendant’s assertion is that the claim for the construction cost of this case is to be paid to Nonparty Company’s labor workers, and its substance is prohibited from seizure pursuant to Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.