1. A joint venture in the form of a joint venture basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da49620, Dec. 12, 2000) and has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da49620, Dec. 12, 2000). The claims against a contractor are, in principle, attributable to the members of a joint venture. Thus, one of the members is not entitled to claim payment according to the ratio of investment shares against a contractor independently, barring any special circumstance. A joint venture may not perform compulsory execution against the claims against a contractor of a joint venture with the principal of a joint venture as a partner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da4401, Aug. 26, 1997; 200Da68924, Feb.

However, as the joint venture and a contractor agree to acquire rights to a contractor directly according to their shares in relation to the claims arising from the contract for construction works, the claims against the contractor may be attributed to each of the members of the joint venture in accordance with their shares in the contract for construction works (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da75332, Jan. 11, 2002). Such agreement may be explicitly and implicitly different from explicitly and explicitly. However, if the members of the joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a separate payment in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a separate payment in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a separate payment in the form of a joint venture in the form of a joint venture in the form of a separate payment in the form of a joint venture in the form of a separate payment in the form of a 20 10.

2. (1) The lower court, citing the judgment of the first instance court, determined that the instant joint supply and demand organization of XX and OO constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act, and determined that the instant joint supply and demand organization of the company XX and O constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act. Since the instant joint supply and demand organization’s claims against the original contractor due to the execution of the instant construction works, the claims of the instant joint supply and demand organization against the original contractor shall be jointly and severally reverted to the members of the instant joint supply and demand organization. Therefore, the Defendants’ disposition of seizure of the instant joint supply and demand organization’s claims for construction payment, which are one of the members of the joint supply and demand organization, on the ground

(2) However, considering the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court cited by the lower court and the record, at the time of organizing the instant joint supply and demand agreement between XX and OO, it can be seen that Article 8 of the joint supply and demand agreement of this case was agreed to receive the payment in the separate account of each member.

Therefore, if a joint supply and demand agreement containing the above contents was submitted at the original city in accordance with the joint supply and demand agreement that the contractor shall pay the contract price by dividing it into the members of the joint supply and demand organization, and the contract for construction works was concluded, it is reasonable to deem that the joint supply and demand organization and the original city have made an implied agreement that the members of the joint supply and demand organization of this case shall have each of the members of the joint supply and demand organization to acquire the right in proportion to their shares in relation to the claim for construction cost, and therefore, there is room to deem that the members of the joint supply and demand organization of this case have the claim for the construction

Nevertheless, the court below did not examine whether the agreement on joint supply and demand of this case was submitted at the prime contractor and the contract for construction work was concluded, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the claim for construction work of this case is a partnership bond which belongs to the members of the joint supply and demand contractor and thus the seizure of each claim by the Defendants is null and void. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reversion of the claim for construction work payment in joint supply and demand contractors

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.