2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is running a business, such as automatic text installation, with the trade name of "C," and the defendant is running a business, such as indoor interior decoration, with the trade name of "D."

B. The Plaintiff, prior to November 30, 2015, performed a construction work of installing an automatic door in the business place “E” (hereinafter “instant construction work”), but did not receive the price.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay 6% per annum from December 1, 2015 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, since the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work upon contract from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that even if the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the construction work of this case, he did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the construction cost against the Defendant, and thus, he did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The effect of the seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act prohibits an obligee and obligor subject to seizure from all acts of disposal, such as repayment and collection of claims, and makes it possible to collect claims on behalf of a delinquent taxpayer. Thus, the garnishee cannot repay claims subject to seizure to the delinquent taxpayer, and only can it be performed to the country that is the collection right holder only.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686 delivered on May 14, 199). If a claim is seized pursuant to Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, only the State, the collection obligee, can bring an action for performance against the third obligor, and the obligor loses the standing to bring an action for performance against the seized claim.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48879 Decided November 12, 2009). We can lives, B.