2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising from the participation by the Plaintiff is assessed against the Intervenor.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

A. On October 0, 2010, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered into a service agreement with the Defendant on the part of the Defendant for the settlement of urban environment (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the urban environment rearrangement project under the Intervenor’s responsibility to move and complete the relocation of unauthorized packaging vehicles, etc. installed therein, in total amount of KRW 1 billion. The contract deposit is 00/00, 000, 000, 00% of the service cost at the time of moving to the 00 business places among the persons subject to relocation, 00, 00% at the time of moving to the 00 business places, 00, 00% at the time of moving to the 00 business places, and 00% at the time of moving to the 00 business places, and the balance is paid within 00 days

B. The intervenor performed the service since around May 2012, and transferred all unauthorized packaging vehicles from around 000 to around 0000 'A' (attached Form No. 1), and the previous packaging end vehicles continued to operate their business at the same business area within 000-0 land (the same drawing B). The defendant delayed the relocation of the packing end in the above business area due to the delay in the relocation of the packing end in the above business area, the plaintiff changed the contract at around 00 on October 20, 2012, and made clear that the scope of service is 0 billion won.

D. On the other hand, in India case, on October 00, 2013, the Defendant was established a compromise with Kim00, which is engaged in packing-type business in the above B’s area, and Kim 00, etc., upon being notified of the commencement of new construction works from the Defendant, the Defendant decided to immediately remove the place of business and order the land to be ordered. The Intervenor decided not to raise any objection against the management and supervision of the place of business on behalf of the Defendant, and the Intervenor still continues the packing-type business at the time of the date of the closing of the instant argument, and the head of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s control continues the packing-type business at the time of the date of the closing of the instant argument. The sum total of 00 corporate tax, etc.

Based on a taxation claim of KRW 000,000,000, the Intervenor notified that the Intervenor’s service payment claim of KRW 000,000,000 on October 0, 2013, and KRW 00,000 on October 0, 200, respectively, should be seized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff seized the Intervenor’s service payment claims against the Defendant, and notified the Defendant thereof.

Therefore, on behalf of the intervenor, the intervenor seeks to pay 00,000,000 won to the intervenor's delinquent tax amount among the service payment claims unpaid to the defendant.

B. Determination

The plaintiff has the right to notify the defendant of the seizure of claims and to subrogate the intervenor (Article 41(1) and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act), but in light of the following: (a) whether the intervenor has a claim for service payment to the defendant; (b) whether the intervenor has a claim for service payment; (c) whether the content of the intervenor’s service has relocated without permission packaging within the urban environment rearrangement project zone; and (d) not terminated until October 2012; and (e) despite settlement between the defendant and Kim Young-young on October 00, 2013, the intervenor still has a duty to relocate without permission, etc. within the above project zone on behalf of the defendant under the modified contract, but the migration has not yet been completed; and (e) the intervenor’s service duty to pay the balance following the completion of the service work with the defendant’s intervenor does not arise.

The intervenor asserts that the defendant has a duty to pay the balance under the contract of this case regardless of the packing end in the area of "A" as shown in the attached drawing because all the packing ends in the area of "B" is relocated. However, if the contents of the contract of this case are limited to the relocation of the packing end in the area of "A", the defendant and the intervenor are also obliged to change the contract of this case on or around October 00, 2012, and the settlement between the defendant and the Kim Young-young, etc. on or around October 00, 2012 as well as the settlement on October 00, 2013 as the contents of the above "B" relocation of packing end in the area of "B", and thus the intervenor's business should also be deemed to include it as a matter of course. In light of the above, the above argument

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.