Whether there exists a debt based on a construction contract, and whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of a debt against the Republic of Korea who is the seizure authority

It appears that there is no obligation based on the contract for construction work against the plaintiff's delinquent taxpayer, and the defendant takes a disposition of seizure on the premise that there is an obligation based on the contract for construction work against the delinquent taxpayer and sought the payment of the amount of seizure, so there is a benefit to seek confirmation

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018 Ghana 5239267 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

AA

Korea

August 29, 2019

October 10, 2019

1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation on April 1, 2018 to the Plaintiff BB does not exist due to the O.O. construction contract.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with BB on the construction work that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with BB for the construction of a new site neighborhood living facility, such as OO-O-O (hereinafter referred to as “instant new construction project”) for the construction work cost X, X00,000 won (X0,000,000 won if value-added tax is combined), and for the construction period from OO to O.O., from April 2018 to O., 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

B. The instant new construction works consisting of No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “No. 1”) and No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “No. 2”). The instant new construction works consist of the construction works, and the construction works consisting of the construction works consisting of the construction works, and the construction works consisting of the construction works, and the construction works of the construction works of the second class neighborhood living facilities (OM) with two units of neighborhood living facilities (1 OOM, 2 OOMM, 3 OOMM) on the ground of the OO-O land at OO.

C. At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and BB set the total construction cost as X, e.g., X, e., e., e., e., X, e., e., e., X, e., e., e., X, e., e., e., e., e., e., e., X-X of the first part of the first part of the instant contract. After the completion of the first part of the instant construction work, the Plaintiff and BB agreed to pay the remainder of 30 million won at the time of the instant second part of the intermediate payment X, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e

D. From O.O. to O., July 2018, 2018, the Plaintiff paid BB a total amount of the cost of work, capital gain, capital gain, and capital gain, and BB paid a total amount of the cost of work. BB completed only the instant construction project and suspended the instant new construction project. Type 2 neighborhood living facilities (one Dong Om2, two Dong Om2, three Dong Om2, and three Dong OOm2) falling under the instant construction project were approved on September 1, 2018.

E. On August 1, 2018, on the ground of BB’s default on national taxes, the Defendant’s tax secretary sent a notice of attachment stating that BB’s delinquent tax credit against the Plaintiff under the instant contract for construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work credit”) should be attached (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”). Around that time, the instant construction work payment should not be paid to BB, and it should be paid to CB by August 1, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-1 to Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

① The instant contract was rescinded on the grounds that BB took place only the instant 1 project, and did not proceed with the remainder of the project, and the Plaintiff paid all the parties at the time the Plaintiff agreed to pay the relevant work cost to BB.

② Even if the Plaintiff and BB do not do so, the construction cost for the instant First Works that was agreed upon by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant contract is X-X, 100,000,000 won for total construction cost (X-X,000,000 won for value added tax). Since the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff to BB, the unpaid construction cost for BB is only X,00,000,000 won for capital gains, capital gains, and capital gains, since the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff to BB. The unpaid construction cost for BB is only X,00,000,000 won for capital gains, and the compensation for delay, etc.

(3) Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant attachment on the premise that the Plaintiff had the claim for construction price against the Plaintiff, and thus, sought confirmation of the absence of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against BB against the Defendant.

(2) The defendant's assertion

BB appears to have completed the entire contract of this case, and since the Plaintiff paid only a part of the total construction cost to BB, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the unpaid construction cost to BB.

B. Determination

In full view of the facts acknowledged under paragraph (1) and the evidence adopted earlier, the Defendant submitted the building ledger (No. 5) concerning the 2-class neighborhood living facilities (1 00 m2, 2 O0 m2, 3 O00 m2, 3 m2) newly constructed by the instant construction work, but did not submit the building ledger concerning the 2-class neighborhood living facilities (O0 m2) that will be newly constructed by the instant construction work, and according to the photographs (No. 5) submitted by the Plaintiff, any building is not constructed on the site of the instant construction. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and BB appears to have been aware of the existence of the instant seizure disposition at the time of the completion of the instant construction work, as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff and BB appears to have terminated the instant construction project without being suspended under the agreement with the Plaintiff due to the instant seizure disposition, etc.

In full view of the above circumstances and the evidence revealed as above, it appears that there is no obligation under the contract of this case against BB, and the defendant takes the attachment disposition of this case on the premise that there is an obligation under the contract of this case against BB, and sought the payment of the amount of the attachment under the premise that there is an obligation under the contract of this case against BB. Thus, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

① In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff and BB paid KRW 00,000 to the payment of the construction cost by the time after the completion of the instant construction work; (b) the remainder of the construction site for the instant secondary construction project to be paid from the time of the construction; (c) the remainder X and the commercialization cost to be paid at the same time when BB delivered a defect repair performance bond; and (d) BB appears not to have issued a defect repair performance bond to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the payment for the completed portion for the instant primary construction project is KRW X and the commercialization (x0,000,000,000,000

② Since the Plaintiff paid BB the total amount of the work cost to the relevant class, the unpaid work cost is X, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class, the relevant class,

③ From among the instant new construction works, BB completed on July 2018, 2018, the instant construction works were completed onO on September 1, 2018. Therefore, even if based onO.O. on September 2018, 2018, compensation for delay exceeds the aforementioned construction work amount, the compensation for delay is X, the capital class, the capital class, the capital class, and the capital class (contract amount) x 0.01 x 52 days (number of days) x 52 days (number of days). In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff does not have any obligation for the construction work that the Plaintiff shall pay to B if the Plaintiff offsets the damages incurred in lieu of defect repairs that the Plaintiff had against B.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.