Each assignment order is served at 00 July 13, 2012, so that it can be known that each assignment order was served on the basis of each order.

Claim for the construction payment concerning the construction of this case at the time the assignment order is served at 00 times

The sum of the seized claims is KRW 1,174,406,00 (=10,056,000 +1,164,350,00).

However, according to the above facts and the purport of the entire argument, the first construction of this case

The contract amount is KRW 1,66,368,650, and there was no progress payment paid from KRW 00,000 at the time when each assignment order of this case was served at KRW 00, but at the time of additional construction report.

approval of the Corporation, or any modification or modification contract thereof, may be known that such

J. There is no evidence to prove that there was an application for the adjustment of D Class D amount, each of the names of the instant cases.

The original contract amount for the instant construction works at the time of delivery at 00:

No one shall be deemed to have been KRW 1,66,368,650, which is not considered as KRW 00.

If advance payment is deducted from KRW 583,229,00, 000, 00

(i) The claim for construction payment was KRW 1,083,139,650 (i.e., KRW 1,66,368,650- 583,229,000)

It is short of the total amount of attachment of claims.

Therefore, each assignment order of this case is null and void as it was issued under the competition of seizure.

I would like to say.

B. As to this, the Plaintiffs: 00-market price after each of the assignment orders of this case was served at 00 times.

The state of competition after receiving advance payment from the Construction Mutual Aid Association was resolved.

Each assignment order asserts to the effect that it is valid.

Therefore, the 00 Market Construction Mutual Aid Association claims the performance of the advance payment obligation to the Health Manager and the Construction Mutual Aid Association.

The fact that construction mutual aid associations received KRW 256,769,00 from September 19, 2012 is as seen earlier.

However, in cases where an assignment order is issued under the overlapping seizure of the future non-determined claim, such assignment order is issued.

Whether an assignment order becomes null and void due to competition of seizure or not shall be determined later;

It is not determined on the basis of the authorized value, but the contract at the time when the assignment order was served on the third debtor.

the amount of seized claims should be determined on the basis of the amount of seized claims (Supreme Court Decision 98Da15439 Decided August 21, 1998)

(c) An assignment order which becomes null and void once issued at the same time under the competition of seizure is subsequent seizure.

Inasmuch as it does not go back with the exclusion of the state of competition (Supreme Court Decision 2007 delivered on January 17, 2008)

C. The plaintiffs' above assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Further, the plaintiffs were paid from 00 o'clocks pursuant to Article 34 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Since part of the advance payment should have been paid to the subcontractor, the remainder after deducting it.

I argue that only the amount should be deducted.

Even if D's advance payment received, part of the advance payment should have been paid to the plaintiffs.

Do, Gap evidence No. 18 and the whole purport of oral argument are as follows, i.e., D

F. Of advance payment received from 00:00 p.m., part of the advance payment is not actually paid to the Plaintiffs

The subcontractor is merely a contractor's performance assistant, and the subcontractor's performance is only a contractor's performance assistant.

Since the part of the original work of the subcontractor, an assistant, is included as a matter of course, the contract after the advance payment is made.

In the event of cancellation or termination, etc., the subcontractor's construction cost for the part of the project;

The fact that the contractor’s interest, including gold schemes, should be deducted from advance payments (Supreme Court Decision 2003 March 28, 2013).

In light of the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da48619, the plaintiffs' above assertion cannot be accepted.

(c)

D. Therefore, under the premise that each assignment order of this case is valid, the plaintiffs' primary and preliminary actions are based on the premise that it is valid.

The claim is without merit and without further examination.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the primary and conjunctive claims of the plaintiffs are all dismissed as they are without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance on the claim is justified as the conclusion is consistent with this conclusion, and thus, in the appeal and the trial of the plaintiffs.

The preliminary claim is all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Preliminary, the distribution amount of KRW 124,423,937 against the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on January 24, 2013 in the distribution procedure for distribution 2012tagi687 of the Gwangju District Court was KRW 124,423,937, and Plaintiff AA Construction

amount of dividends to Plaintiff B in KRW 106,514,424, and amount of dividends to Plaintiff BB in KRW 17,149,563;

The claim was added.

AA Construction 2012TT 2827, 509 heading 777,260,000

BB Construction 2012TT 2828, 510 No. 510,990,000

CC Construction 2012TT 2829, 508 No. 199,100,000

Total KRW 1,164,350,000

18. Each service on DDR was made on July 26, 2012.

○ After doing so, D&D cases shall be submitted to the Corporation at 00 times around August 7, 2012, and shall be submitted a letter of waiver of construction works.

the contract amount of the construction of the instant case to D Class D around October 30, 2012, and 00:

1,958,239,00 won shall be changed by reflecting the additional construction cost, but the amount of the construction contract shall be 1,642,970,00 won

(i) the determination of the initial contract amounting to KRW 1,322,970,00 + additional construction amounting to KRW 320,00,000; and

had been.

○ Plaintiff AD Construction: around September 2012, 2012, drafted a written statement of direct withdrawal from D Class D and 00 Si roads.

Tter KRW 52,596,900 for the first contract on September 26, 2012, and KRW 103,90 for additional construction on November 28, 2012, and KRW 103,903,100 for additional construction

(2) The first contract was made on September 26, 2012 by Plaintiffs BB Construction in the same manner.

159,087,300 won, and the additional construction cost 29,912,700 won on November 28, 2012 were paid, and the Plaintiff Daeyang Construction

In addition, on September 26, 2012, the first contract amounting to KRW 149,744,100, and additional construction on November 28, 2012

Sector 28,155,900 won was paid.

○ Meanwhile, on August 27, 2012, the Mineyang City failed to allocate advance payments to the subcontractors of D Class D contracts on August 27, 2012

return of advance payment to EE Construction and Construction Mutual Aid Association for the termination of the contract due to the waiver of the construction

Notice of the occurrence of an accident and notification of the occurrence of the accident, KRW 256,769,00 from the Construction Mutual Aid Association on September 19, 2012 and substitution therefor.

The agreement received KRW 264,74,6420, total of KRW 7,977,420.

○ In addition, 00 Cities are notified of a number of provisional seizure or seizure of the claim for the construction price of this case

No. 3503, Nov. 28, 2012 for the reason that the case was filed by the Gwangju District Court Decision No. 3503, 2012

124,322,690 won in the balance of the construction cost was deposited.

○ The said court has proceeded with the distribution procedure for the said deposit under 2012tagi687 on January 2013.

24. A person having the right to seize after fixing the amount to be actually distributed as 124,423,937 won (as of September 4, 2012).

The distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case") in which the full amount is distributed to the defendant (Z tax territory)

(1) The Plaintiffs were present on the date of the above distribution and the full amount of the dividends to the Defendant.

The objection was raised.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 17, Eul evidence 1 to 9, 11, 12, 13 (each of them)

(including lot number), the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

The claim for the construction price of this case was already transferred to the plaintiffs in accordance with each assignment order of this case.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case must be revised as stated in the purport of the claim (the plaintiff in the trial).

In addition, the amount of the subcontract construction cost for new D D D cases is otherwise asserted and the conjunctive claim is added.

2)

B. Defendant

Prior to the claim for construction price of this case at the time each assignment order of this case was served at 00 times;

Although the provisional seizure was decided, the claim amount of the above prior provisional seizure and the claim amount of each assignment order of this case

the Corporation’s initial contract amount or any other settlement amount of the Corporation’s other settlement; and

Since each assignment order of this case is issued under the concurrence of seizure, each assignment order of this case was issued under the concurrence of seizure.

is null and void.

3. Determination

(a) Three obligations as the attachment and assignment order of two or more claims is issued for the same claim;

the assignment order was issued at the same time with the concurrent attachment of the claim;

Whether it is invalid or not shall be determined by the sum of the seizure amounts of each claim for seizure.

Since it is determined on the basis of whether it exceeds the latter, if the latter exceeds the latter,

An additional order shall be null and void because it was issued in the state of competition with the seizure of all bonds.

In the absence of this, the assignment order is not the case where the seizure of the claim is concurrent.

All are effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da68839, Jul. 26, 2002).

In addition, when an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, execution shall be conducted retroactively from the time when the assignment order is served on the garnishee.

It is naturally transferred to all creditors within the scope of the claim and at the same time the termination of the execution claim is effective.

Since an assignment order was served on a third party debtor, seizure is made as of the time of service on the third party debtor.

If there is no competition, the subsequent attachment of claims will affect the validity of the assignment order;

such claim shall not be subject to seizure, as the claim for the construction payment before the completion of the construction.

It is different from the content that contains an uncertain element on the detailed determination of the future amount of claims.

prior to the completion of the construction in which an uncertain element is included in the determination of the amount of claims as above.

order of assignment for the claim for the construction price at the same time shall be valid in the future;

interpretation that an assignment order takes place when it was delivered to the third debtor, not at the fixed price of the claim.

any other person subject to the order of seizure and seizure; the person who has seized the claim; and

e. Whether an assignment order becomes void due to competition of seizure, or not, a final and conclusive seizure

It is not determined on the basis of the authorized value, but the contract at the time when the assignment order was served on the third debtor.

It should be determined on the basis of the amount of seized claims (Supreme Court Decision 95Da95 delivered on September 26, 1995).

4681 see Supreme Court Decision 4681

On the other hand, the so-called advance payment received in the construction contract is related to the specific advance payment.

payment for prepaid construction in connection with the entire project, not the payment for the work paid;

Proportional settlement according to the ratio of the amount equivalent to the amount completed to the contract amount at each time of payment of such amount.

(1) A contractor shall be selected during the Doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da1386, Sept. 4, 2002);

In the event of a cause to return an amount of offset, the time such cause has occurred without the declaration of a separate offset.

As a matter of course, the unpaid construction cost shall be appropriated for the unpaid construction cost (Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on December 12, 199).

7. Claims for the payment of construction work before completion of construction work: claims for the payment of construction work before completion of construction work, as seized claims;

in determining whether there is competition between seizure and seizure of claims, the public

It is reasonable to deduct the total amount as the private price.

He returned to the instant case, the facts as seen earlier and the No. 2 (including the No. 2)

According to Section B, the FF Development Co., Ltd. (FF) on July 9, 2012 00 Si court 2012

The provisional attachment order of KRW 10,056,000 among the claim for the construction price of this case by Canada359 was issued

The provisional attachment decision was served at July 11, 2012 by the Plaintiffs, and the construction of this case on July 12, 2012 by the Plaintiffs.

For the total of KRW 1,164,350,000 in total among the subscription bonds, this case is ordered

On March 29, 2012, the contract amount of AAA Construction Contract for the construction work of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “DD Construction”) from March 29, 2012 to July 10, 2012, BB Construction of KRW 77,260,00 on March 29, 2012 to July 29, 2012, to March 187, 2090,000 from March 29, 2012 to July 10, 2012; and from March 28, 2012 to March 28, 2012 to March 28, 2012, the contract amount of the construction work of KRW 30,000 to KRW 30,00 from March 28, 2012 to KRW 36,00,000; and from March 26, 2013 to KRW 20,636,206.

○ Then, D&D cases subcontracted each part of the instant construction to the Plaintiffs as indicated below, and on April 17, 2012, a notary public drafted and issued to the Plaintiffs a promissory note No. 508, 509, and 510 of the 2012 No. 2012, a notary public made and issued to the Plaintiffs a deed of compulsory acceptance of promissory notes with each face value as the subcontract price.

○00: (a) around June 5, 2012, the actual report was submitted to the effect that the construction volume needs to be changed, such as design change and soil stockpiling, due to changes in the site conditions; (b) ordered construction of additional construction by July 10, 2012; and (c) approved the actual report on July 25, 2012.

○ Until July 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs executed the instant construction work in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,322,970,000, equivalent to the highest rate of KRW 79.39% with respect to the initial contract portion during the instant construction work, and executed the construction work in an amount equivalent to KRW 320,000,000, equivalent to the highest rate of KRW 94.85% with respect to the additional construction portion.

○ The Plaintiffs, based on the notarial deed of this case, filed an application with the Gwangju District Court for the attachment and assignment order of a claim for part of the claim for the construction price of this case against D Class D 00 of D D D D D D D D D's payment claim in the Seoul District Court branch on July 12, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "each assignment order of this case"). Each assignment order of this case was issued at the time of July 13, 2012; and on July 7, 2012, each of the instant assignment orders of the Plaintiff was filed on July 13, 2012.