Article 50 of the National Tax Collection Act

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

2. For the preliminary purpose:

A. The defendant's attached Form No. 8 of July 8, 2008 or the defendant's attached Form No. 2008.

9.25.Ascertainment that the omission of a request for release of one's claim is unlawful;

B. In the above 2-A claim and selective choice, the defendant dismissed the plaintiffs' objection against the seized claims listed in the separate sheet on August 1, 2008, and thus the rejection disposition against the plaintiffs is revoked.

Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the primary claim shall be revoked. The attachment disposition rendered by the defendant on January 2, 2008 with respect to the conjunctive claims listed in the attached list is invalid (the plaintiff did not appeal with respect to the conjunctive claims in the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court).

The court's reasoning in this part is as follows: (a) the plaintiffs among the basic facts set forth in paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as Young Construction Co., Ltd., Red ○ Construction Co., Ltd., and (b) the plaintiff Young ○ Construction Co., Ltd. as Young ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and (c) 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance. On May 13, 2009, the Young ○ Construction Co., Ltd. was appointed as the administrator of the above company (hereinafter the rehabilitation company) upon the decision of commencement of rehabilitation as Busan District Court 2009hap17 on May 13, 2009. Except for the addition of the rehabilitation procedure, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

With respect to the lawsuit of this case for which the plaintiffs asserted that the seizure of this case is subject to the property owned by a third party, not the taxpayer, and that it is void as a matter of course, the defendant is in the position of a member of the joint supply and demand company of this case, and since the rehabilitation company and the plaintiff Hong Construction and Dong Construction are merely in the position of a member of the joint supply and demand company of this case, the defendant has a factual or indirect interest with respect to the seizure of this case and does not have a legal direct and specific interest, and therefore

On the other hand, as examined below, the plaintiffs asserted that the joint supply and demand company of this case is a partnership under the Civil Act, and the part of the seizure disposition of this case is null and void on the premise that the claim of this case is a partnership's claim, or dispute over the amount of the seizure claim of this case, which exceeds a certain amount of amount among the seizure disposition of this case. Since whether the seizure of this case is a partnership's claim of this case or a claim belonging to the non-party company, which is a partner of the joint supply and demand company of this case, can not be known solely, it is reasonable to view that the seizure of this case is subject to a third party's property, not a taxpayer, and therefore, the plaintiffs asserted that the seizure of this case is null and void as the object of the seizure of this case's property is a legal interest to seek the confirmation of invalidity of the seizure of this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Da68924, Feb. 23, 201; 200Du8356, Oct. 9, 2001).

B. Whether the attachment disposition of this case is invalid

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The joint supply and demand of this case constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act, and the claims of this case against Busan School Love Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Iveve") due to the execution of the construction of this case are claims of the association, which belong to the quasi-joint supply and demand of its members. Therefore, the defendant's seizure of the claims of this case against the claims of this case which are the property of the association for reasons of delinquency in payment of corporate tax, etc. of the non-party company, which is a member of the association, is limited to the property owned by a third party, not the delinquent taxpayer, and thus the

B. Even if the instant joint contractor’s claim for the construction cost belongs to each contractor as a result of the execution of the instant construction project, Nonparty Co., Ltd., in accordance with the joint supply and demand agreement of this case and the joint contract agreement of this case, is required to cooperate in the execution of the instant construction project. In return, Nonparty Co., Ltd., as a result, agreed to receive only the amount equivalent to 25% of the non-party Co., Ltd’s construction cost excluding the portion equivalent to 95% of the progress payment for the rehabilitation company, Plaintiff Red ○ Construction, and the joint contract of this case, and the portion equivalent to the portion equivalent to 95% of the progress payment for the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.’s construction cost 131,560,00 (10,524,800,000 x above 5% of the total progress payment x 25% of the total amount which actually reserved the payment for the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.’s construction cost 10,524,000>

(2) Relevant statutes

The court's explanation in this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(3) Determination

A. First, we examine the allegation that the Defendant’s seizure of the instant seized claim, which is the property of the partnership, is against the property owned by a third party, not the defaulted taxpayer, and thus, is null and void as a matter of course.

This case's seized claim is basically belonging to the joint venture in this case's case's civil law, even if the joint venture in this case's civil law has the nature of the partnership, all the claims against the subcontractor in relation to the contract for the construction work must be attributed to the members of the joint venture. The nature of the claims against the subcontractor by the members of the joint venture is determined according to the contents of the contract for the construction work (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da49395 delivered on September 23, 2003; 2001Da75332 delivered on January 11, 202; 9Da68584 delivered on July 13, 2001).

In the contract for the construction work of this case (Evidence 2 of this case), the member of the other party to the contract, who is a joint contractor, shall submit to the representative of the joint contractor or the representative determined by the Steering Committee of the joint contractor quarterly a written application for the amount separately stated by each member, and the said representative shall submit it to the project operator each quarter to request for the payment of the amount (Article 34 (1) (the first part). (2) Unless otherwise provided for in this contract, the project operator shall pay to each member of the joint contractor or notify the project operator that he will delegate the authority to receive the amount to the representative, and in this case the other party to the contract shall pay to the said representative any objection against the payment to the joint contractor (Article 34).

It is rescheduled as the latter part of paragraph 1.

In addition, the joint supply and demand agreement between the members of the instant joint supply and demand agreement (No. 3) and the special contract between the members of the instant joint supply and demand agreement (Evidence No. 4) and the non-party company (Evidence No. 4), ① The compensation, etc. for the joint contract shall be paid in the form of a bankation notified by each member of the joint supply and demand organization to the project operator through the representative of the joint supply and demand organization (Article 8 of the joint supply and demand agreement of this case). ② The joint supply and demand agreement of this case shall be paid in accordance with the amount claimed by each member of the joint supply and demand organization by the joint supply and demand organization (Article 8 of the joint supply and demand agreement of this case). ② the compensation for each company shall be paid in accordance with each company’s shares through the head of the Tong and the employee reduction who reported for the receipt of progress payment for each company for the project and the execution of the project input funds (Article 13 of the joint contract of this case).

In addition, in the construction contract of this case, the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party, its Enforcement Decree, its Enforcement Rule, its Accounting Rules, and its Accounting Rules are stipulated as contract documents (Article 3(1) of the construction contract of this case). Under the Guidelines for the Operation of Joint Contracts to Local Governments (Article 143 of the Rules of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security (Article 143, May 29, 2008, Article 258 of the Rules of the former) of the Rules of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security) (Article 258 of the Rules of the Rules of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security), a contracting officer shall have a joint subcontractor representative submit an application separately for advance payment, consideration, etc. (Article III. 7.1) of the Rules of the Management of Joint Contracts of the above Local Government), and a contracting officer shall pay the amount requested to each member of the Joint Supply and Security (Article 3.3.

According to the contract of this case, joint supply and demand agreement, construction contract special agreement, and accounting rules, the members of the instant joint supply and demand organization and the members of the instant joint supply and demand for the payment of the construction cost shall each be paid and received through a representative of the members in the course of performing their duties, and in fact, if the rehabilitation company claims payment for the payment to the Busan School Love as the representative of the relevant joint supply and demand organization before the non-party company withdraws due to default, the Busan School Love shall be deemed to have been directly paid to each member according to the terms and conditions of the contract with the joint supply and demand organization. In light of the fact that the claim for payment for each member of the instant joint supply and demand organization is not attributable to the members of the Busan School Love, but belongs to each member of the instant joint supply and demand organization separately according to their share ratio.

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the attachment bond of this case belongs to the joint contractors jointly and severally with the members are without merit.

B. Next, regarding the assertion that the part exceeding KRW 131,560,000, which was agreed to be paid by the non-party company among the attachment disposition of this case, is invalid.

On the other hand, the defendant issued a seizure disposition on the claim of this case to purify the delinquent corporate tax, etc., and as seen above, the defendant can collect the claim of this case until the non-party company obtains satisfaction of the tax amount in arrears within the scope of the above claim amount based on the validity of the seizure disposition, and the part exceeding 131,560,000 won among the seizure disposition of this case is null and void since the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party company as the creditor of the seizure of this case's claim of this case's claim of this case's claim of this case's claim of this case's claim of 131,560,000 won cannot be deemed null and void. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the primary claim of the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal of the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.