2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

On December 2, 2011, it is confirmed that school juristic persons have the right to claim the payment of deposit against the Plaintiff DakiA Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff DokiA Co.,, Ltd., the Plaintiff MOO, the Plaintiff EXO to the Switzerland Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff EX for the OO, and the Plaintiff DaF Co., Ltd. for the OF.

A. On October 25, 2010, a school juristic person regularCC (hereinafter referred to as “regularCC”) entered into a contract for construction with the Defendant LriB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ELB”) on a contract for the extension of a school meal room and a student restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”).

B. Defendant LriB subcontracted each part of the instant construction to each of the Plaintiffs and Defendant LH, Co., Ltd., gender II, JJ Co., Ltd., three KK, MineL Co., Ltd., and newM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs and the above six companies”)

다. ① 피고 동NN 주식회사는 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 1. 27. 대구지방법원 2011카합30호로 피고 엘리BB의 정CC에 대한 이 사건 공사대금채권을 가압류하였고, 위 가압류결정은 2011. 1. 31. 정CC에게 송달되었다. ② 피고 신OO은 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 5. 23. 의정부지방법원 동두천시법원 2011카단95호로 이 사건 공사금채권을 가압류하였고, 위 가압류결정은 2011. 5. 26. 정CC에게 송달되었다. ③ 피고 주식회사 신PP은 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 6. 13. 서울동부지방법원 2011카단3952호로 이 사건 공사대금채권을 가압류하였고, 위 가압류결정은 2011. 6. 16. 정CC에게 송달되었다. ④ 피고 대한민국은 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 조세채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 6. 10. 이 사건 공사대금채권을 압류하였고, 위 압류통지서가 2011. 6. 17. 정CC에게 송달되다. ⑤ 피고 주식회사 보QQ은 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 6. 17. 대구지방법원 영덕지원 2011카단171호로 이 사건 공사대금채권을 가압류하였고, 위 가압류결정은 2011. 6. 20. 정CC에게 송달되었다. ⑥ 피고 주식회사 평RR는 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 7.26. 서울남부지방법원 2011카단5488호로 이 사건 공사대금채권을 가압류하였고, 위 가압류결정은 2011. 7. 29. 정CC에게 송달되었다. 이후 피고 주식회사 평RR는 청구금액을 OOOO원으로 하여 2011. 9. 6. 서울남부지방법원 2011타채23104호로 위 가압류를 본압류로 이전하는 채권압류 및 추심명령 결정을 받았고, 위 결정은 2011. 9. 9. 정CC에게 송달되었다. ⑦ 피고 주식회사 우SS은 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 8. 2. 대구지방법원 포항지원 2011카단1378호로 이 사건 공사대금채권을 가압류하였고, 위 가압류결정은 2011. 8. 4. 정CC에게 송달되었다. ⑧ 피고 대한민국은 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 조세채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 9. 9. 이 사건 공사대금채권을 압류하였고, 위 압류통지서가 2011. 9. 16. 정CC에게 송달되었다. ⑨ 피고 박TT은 피고 엘리BB에 대한 OOOO원의 채권을 보전하기 위해 2011. 11. 7. 서울중앙지방법원 2011카단62696호로 이 사건 공사대금채권을 가압류하였고, 위 가압류결정은 2011. 11. 11. 정CC에게 송달되었다.

D. On June 10, 2011, UCC and Defendant LB agreed to pay the subcontract price for the instant construction project directly to the instant subcontractors pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on June 15, 201 (hereinafter “the instant direct payment agreement”), among the subcontractors of this case, the subcontractor of this case agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the instant subcontractors (hereinafter “the instant direct payment agreement”).

F. After Defendant Dong NNN Co., Ltd and NewO’s provisional attachment (C. 1, B.), as described in the above paragraph (d) above, the direct payment agreement was reached with the subcontractor of this case. However, as described in the above C. 3 through 9, there were concurrent seizures, including additional provisional attachment and seizure of the claim for the construction cost of this case. At the time of the competition between the above attachment and the subcontractor, it cannot be clearly known that the subcontract price of this case was paid to the subcontractor of this case, and that the priority order between the subcontractor of this case and the provisional attachment and the execution creditor cannot be known. On December 2, 2011, the deposit was made by the Seoul Central District Court under Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

With respect to the claim of this case by the plaintiffs seeking confirmation as to the amount stated in the claim, the claim of this case is against the plaintiffs, and since the deposit of this case is not included in the defendant LB, the defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B. Determination

(1) In light of the following: (a) the depositee is under his/her responsibility and judgment; (b) the depositee may choose the deposit for repayment, the execution deposit, or the mixed deposit in accordance with his/her own will; and (c) the depositee shall determine whether the depositee has made a certain kind of deposit, the statutory provisions that form the basis for the deposit, the fact of the cause of the deposit, etc. shall be considered comprehensively and reasonably (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012); and (c) the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit with the nature of the execution deposit as well as the repayment deposit, in full view of the statutory provisions indicated as the grounds for the deposit, the statement of the cause of the deposit, and the circumstances leading to the deposit of this case.

(2) In order to make a mixed deposit for reasons of its repayment deposit and execution, it is reasonable to have the reason for its creditor's non-payment deposit and its execution should be carried out together. Since fixedCC did not know about the existence of the period of the instant subcontractor until the above seizure is concurrent, it is reasonable to deem that the instant deposit was satisfied with the reasons for its non-payment of the instant case. However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem the Defendant's non-payment of the instant deposit as the non-payment of the instant case's non-payment of the same amount's deposit under the name of ELB. It is reasonable to consider the effect of the instant deposit as the non-payment of the instant case's non-payment of the same amount's non-payment of the same amount's deposit as the non-payment of the instant case's non-payment of the same amount's non-payment of the same amount's deposit of the instant case's non-payment of the same amount's non-payment of the deposit of this case's non-payment of the same amount's deposit of the non-payment of the judgment.

(4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case, which is premised on the validity of the deposit of this case, is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.