배당이의
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal shall be the first instance.
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, since the reasoning for the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that of the Defendants’ corresponding parts among the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the modification as follows, it refers to the main text of Article 420 of
Section 2(2)(2)
P. 2) The Plaintiff operated a mutual human resources office called “I” and provided human resources to F’s work site.
Defendant B lent money to F, and Defendant D lent temporary materials to F to F, and it has a claim against F.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff sent the Plaintiff’s seal to the construction site of F, and the Plaintiff did not send the Plaintiff’s seal as it was difficult for the Plaintiff to provide on-site funding from July 2016 to January 2017.
A direct contract with the FF was made by the parts of the people at the construction site.
During that period, the parts found the plaintiff and delegated the plaintiff with the receipt of the wage that was not paid during the above period.
The Plaintiff paid an amount equivalent to the wages to four of the four of the Plaintiff’s husbands (or lending). The Plaintiff, including up to 19 other husbands, delegated his/her receipt of wages, and then transferred his/her claim of KRW 78,095,000 out of the construction price of the instant case from F.
The plaintiff's acquisition of the above bonds is related to wages of the father, which is prohibited from seizure in accordance with the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Enforcement Decree.
Therefore, provisional seizure on the defendants' claim for the construction price of this case is null and void including the claim for prohibition of seizure.
Therefore, the purport of the appeal is to seek the correction of the dividend table, such as the previous re-determination of the claim.
2) The grounds upon which the Plaintiff acquired the claim from F does not constitute a claim prohibiting seizure with respect to non-performance of services or claims for indemnity arising from the operation of his/her manpower office, and there is no evidence to specify that the amount of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired by transfer is a claim prohibited from seizure.
The Plaintiff’s wages from his husband.