2. Article 14 (1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act provides that "If any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree occurs, such as where a principal contractor is unable to pay the subcontract consideration due to his/her bankruptcy or default, etc., the ordering person shall directly pay the subcontractor the subcontract consideration equivalent to the portion manufactured, repaired, or constructed by the subcontractor, to the relevant subcontractor," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "if any ground referred to in paragraph (1) occurs, the obligation to pay the subcontract consideration to the subcontractor and the obligation to pay the subcontract consideration to the subcontractor to the subcontractor of the ordering person shall be deemed extinguished within the extent of the obligation to pay the subcontract consideration," and Article 4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act provides that "if an ordering person directly pays the subcontract consideration to the subcontractor pursuant to Article 14 (1) of the Act, the principal contractor becomes unable to pay the subcontract consideration upon the cancellation of permission, authorization, license, registration, etc. of the principal contractor, and the subcontractor requests the subcontractor to pay the subcontract consideration directly to the ordering person and the subcontractor.

However, in accordance with the above provisions, there is no provision excluding the effect of compulsory execution or preservation execution that takes place prior to the occurrence of a cause for direct payment of subcontract consideration under the above provisions. Therefore, in a case where a third-party creditor of the principal contractor has preserved claims by seizure, provisional seizure, etc. against the principal contractor before a cause for direct payment of subcontract consideration occurred, the claims executed and preserved after the cause for direct payment of subcontract consideration shall not be extinguished notwithstanding the direct cause for payment of subcontract consideration which occurred.

Therefore, as long as the defendant asserts that before November 16, 200, a direct claim for the payment of the subcontract price was made in this case, the non-party's provisional attachment decision was delivered to the defendant of the new comprehensive construction, and that the attachment notification of local tax in arrears at Jeju and the attachment notification by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation was served, etc., the court below should determine whether the subcontract price to be paid to the plaintiff under the above legal principles based on the circumstances revealed after all relevant arguments were reviewed by the defendant. However, although the remaining provisional attachment and seizure are different opinion, the court below concluded that the debt to the defendant of the new comprehensive construction was extinguished at the time of the occurrence of the reasons stipulated in Article 14 (1) and (2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and Article 4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the seizure or provisional attachment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant among the remaining arguments in the grounds of appeal shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)