1. The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows.

A. Facts acknowledged by the court below

On October 4, 1993, the defendant decided that the contract amount was 8,151,00,000 won (However, the actual contract amount was 6,350,000,000 won for the non-party company to donate 1,80,000 won to the defendant) and the construction period was 6,350,000 on October 5, 1993 (However, it was extended on October 4, 1994 by December 31, 1994) by the non-party company to implement school facilities works at the ○ Industries College (hereinafter referred to as the "construction works in this case").

However, the Plaintiff failed to pay the national taxes of KRW 1,003,208,920, including the value-added tax amount of KRW 193,667,060 and the additional tax amount of KRW 51,059,350 (hereinafter “the national taxes of this case”), and thereafter, imposed additional tax of KRW 147,73,440 on each of the above national taxes. On November 17, 1994, the Plaintiff seized the Defendant’s claim of KRW 1,003,208,920 among the claim for the construction payment of this case against the Defendant under the procedure for collecting delinquent national taxes under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act. After receiving the attachment notice, the attachment notice was served on the Defendant on the 19th of the same month.

The non-party company suspended the construction work of this case until December 24, 1994, and the defendant cancelled the construction contract of this case with the non-party company around February 6, 1995. The non-party company paid 1,670,000,000 won to the non-party company as part of the above construction contract until the non-party company discontinued the construction work of this case. The construction contract of this case was in KRW 3,480,384,563 until the non-party company discontinued the construction work of this case.

B. The judgment of the court below

According to the above facts, the claims subject to attachment of this case are KRW 1,810,384,563 (3,480,384,563-1,670,000) excluding the construction cost already paid prior to the notification of the attachment of this case among the original construction cost of the non-party company's recognition of the attachment of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,003,208,920 to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

However, at the time of conclusion of the construction contract of this case, the defendant and the non-party company agreed to transfer the ownership of the above 2,00,000 won of the construction price of this case to the non-party company, instead of cash payment, to the non-party company as to the 1,759 square meters of Seodaemun-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) and the above 220,000 square meters of land ( Address 3 omitted) and 96.9 square meters of land and 220.3 square meters of land (hereinafter each of the real estate of this case) owned by the defendant to the non-party company in lieu of the above 2,00,00,000 won of the construction price of this case. The defendant transferred the above 2,00,000 won of the above construction price of this case to the non-party company to the non-party company and the non-party company to whom the above 2,000,0000 won was transferred to the non-party company to the non-party company's defense to be attached.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the foregoing recognition and determination by the lower court as it is.

A. First of all, although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is unclear, the court below, as seen above, has a duty to pay KRW 1,810,384,563 of the above-mentioned claim for the construction payment against the defendant of the non-party company and KRW 1,003,208,920 of the above-mentioned claim for the construction payment to the plaintiff according to the effect of the seizure of this case. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay KRW 1,003,208,920 of the above-mentioned claim for the above-mentioned claim for the construction payment to the non-party company. Thus, the defendant's right to the non-party company of this case without delay after the seizure of this case is in substitution for the payment of the construction payment for the above-mentioned contract, because it is against the validity of the seizure of this case.

B. However, if the court below acknowledged that the defendant and the non-party company agreed to transfer the ownership of each of the instant real estate in lieu of the above construction price claim amounting to KRW 2,00,000,000,000, and that the court below concluded that the claim for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate was extinguished within the extent of the above amount, and that only the claim for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate was agreed to be made with the remaining instrument, the defendant and the non-party company are not entitled to the claim for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate and the construction price of KRW 2,00,000,000 shall not have any claim and debt of KRW 2,00,000, the seizure of the above claim for the

However, in light of the records, it is difficult to readily conclude that the transfer of each of the instant real estate between the Defendant and the Nonparty Company solely based on the evidence or its recognition adopted by the lower court was made by the Defendant and the Nonparty Company in lieu of the payment for the extinguishment of the claim for the construction cost and the payment thereof. As seen earlier, the lower court erred in the misapprehension of its reasoning and the misapprehension of its reasoning, since the claim for the instant seizure is the claim for the construction cost and the seizure of the above claim for the construction cost is valid, and thus, it is difficult to maintain the lower court’s judgment even if the lower

C. Accordingly, the court below should have determined that, first of all, the agreement between the defendant and the non-party company on the transfer of each of the real estate in this case was extinguished, the claim for the construction price was made in lieu of the payment of the construction price, or the claim for the construction price was maintained, and it was not made in lieu of the payment of the construction price, but the claim for the construction price was maintained. However, if the above agreement was made in one way and the payment of the construction price was made in lieu of the payment of the construction price, the defendant shall not pay the construction price attached to the non-party company as well as the payment of the construction price was made in lieu of the payment of the construction price, and it shall not be allowed against the validity of the seizure, and the above agreement cannot be asserted against the plaintiff on the ground that the above agreement was made before the seizure of this case. However, the court below should have determined that the agreement on the transfer of each of the real estate in this case should be somewhat and somewhat substitute for the payment of the construction price, and the defendant did not err in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, or did not err in its reasoning.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)