공사대금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant lawsuits, 141,300,138 won and damages for delay.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows. The "the result of appraiser A's appraisal" under Section 10 of Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "the result of appraiser A's appraisal of the court of first instance" and the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. As to the plaintiff's assertion of the parties against the defendant for the payment of the unpaid construction price of KRW 188,328,946 and the delay damages therefor, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for this portion of the plaintiff's claim is unlawful since the plaintiff's claim for the construction price, since it has lost the plaintiff's right of collection as to the sum of the amount for which the plaintiff's creditor's seizure and collection order was confirmed, and the sum of the amount attached by the head of the same tax office under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act (24,23,118 won 189,806,340 won).
(b) If there exists a seizure and collection order against the relevant statutory claims, only the collection obligee may institute a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to institute a lawsuit for performance against the seized claims;
(1) In cases where a seizure disposition is taken pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act on a delinquent’s claim, the aforementioned legal principle applies to cases where a debtor’s claim against a third-party debtor is seized due to a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da48879, Nov. 12, 2009). Therefore, if a delinquent’s claim is seized pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act, the delinquent may not exercise the seized claim, and only the Republic of Korea, the collection right holder, can exercise the said claim.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686 delivered on May 14, 1999, etc.). C.
Judgment
With respect to the instant case, the amount of the claim for the construction price payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 188,328,946, as seen in the following 3. In the meantime, the statement in the evidence Nos. 6 through 8 is examined.