(a) Scope of claims prohibited from seizure under Article 55 of the Construction Business Act; and

B. Whether such provision may apply to a case where it is not a constructor or construction work under the Construction Business Act (negative)

(a) Claims for which attachment is prohibited under Article 55 of the Construction Business Act shall be calculated by summing up the wages specified in the design, from among the contract amounts for construction works prescribed by Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, such as civil engineering and construction works at the same place of work and other construction works prescribed by Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by the constructor, limited to the amount specified in the contract amounts;

B. In light of the purport that Article 55 of the Construction Business Act provides that the prohibition of seizure should be limited to the subcontract amount of other construction than construction works under the subcontracted Construction Business Act by a person who is not a constructor under the Construction Business Act.

Articles 2 and 55 of the Construction Business Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No.719, Mar. 24, 1987)

E. E.S. Uniforms

Three Houses Co., Ltd.

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (86Gahap2716)

1. The judgment below is modified as follows:

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 14,309,769 won and the amount of 528,769 won among these amounts, five percent per annum from October 15, 1986 to April 29, 1987; twenty-five percent per annum from April 30, 1987 to the date of full payment; and twenty-five percent per annum from the remainder of 13,781,00 won to the date of full payment; five percent per annum from August 29, 1986 to February 23, 198; and twenty-five percent per annum from February 24, 198 to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. One tenth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

5. The above paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15 million won with 25 percent interest per annum from August 23, 1986 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 14,471,231 won and the amount equivalent to 25 percent per annum from August 23, 1986 to the date of full payment.

The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Attachment and Assignment Order for Claims), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Evidence Certificate), Eul evidence Nos. 1 (Identification Certificate), Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Evidence Certificate), Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 3 (Multiple Receipt), and Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 (Contract Nos. 4) which are recognized by the preceding purport of oral pleadings, the defendant company received from the above 20-1, 70-6, 70-1, 70-6, 70-1, 70-6, 70-1, 80, 70-1, 60-1, 60, 70-1, 60, 60-1, 60, 70-1, 60, 60-1, 60, 306, 60, 70-1, 60, 80, 70, 1, 306, 40, 7, 1, 1,

As to this, the defendant's above Kim Yong-ok's claim for construction works is prohibited from seizure pursuant to Article 55 (1) of the Construction Business Act, and even if the plaintiff received an attachment or assignment order for the above claim, such attachment order is null and void due to violation of the mandatory law. Therefore, since the attachment itself, which is the premise of an assignment order, is null and void, the above assignment order also becomes null and void, it shall not be seized. According to Article 55 (1) of the Construction Business Act, among the contract amount of the construction works for which the constructor receives a contract, the amount equivalent to wages to be paid to the worker of the construction works shall not be seized. According to Article 2 of the same Act, the constructor means a person who carries on the construction business after obtaining a license under the same Act, and construction works mean construction works and other construction works prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act, the defendant's claim that the above construction works should not be prohibited from seizure should be further specified in Article 55 (2) of the Subcontract Act, which provides that the constructor should be prohibited from seizure of the above construction works.

However, without dispute over the establishment of Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 (written confirmation, the plaintiff's written confirmation) of Nos. 5-1 (the part of the above written confirmation is less than that of the employees employed by the above Corporation, or some of the above written additional statements were altered at will by the defendant company. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion merely by the testimony of the witness of the court below. Thus, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading on August 23, 1986, after the plaintiff was ordered to seize and attach the claim of this case on May 25, 1986, the non-party Kim Yong-ok who was subcontracted the above work was 60 won for the work of the defendant company, 70 won for the above work of this case, 90 won for the above work of this case, 70 won for the plaintiff's original work of this case, 90 won for the plaintiff's remaining 60 won for the defendant company's remaining 90 won for the above work of this case, 9707 won for the plaintiff's original work of this case.

In addition to the above wage of KRW 14,266,00, the defendant asserted that the defendant consented to the payment of KRW 10,293,00 to the employees' pure wage (excluding the mid-term rental fee) of KRW 1,70,00 from among the employees of the "Korea Communications Corporation", who had been engaged in the instant work among the employees of the "Korea Communications Corporation", operated by the Kim Yong-ok, and KRW 1,70,000 from among the employees of the instant work, who had been engaged in the instant work, as well as KRW 14,26,00,00 from among the above employees. However, the above argument is groundless, since there is no other evidence as there is no reason to acknowledge that some of the testimony of the above witness's loan type was trusted, and there is no other evidence.

Furthermore, the defendant agreed that the non-party Kim Yong-ok will preferentially pay the worker's wage when he receives the work price from the defendant. At that time, the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the performance of the obligation under the above contract of the non-party Kim Yong-ok. Since the defendant paid the wage which the non-party Kim Yong-ok is liable for payment on behalf of the above Kim Yong-ok pursuant to the above contract, the plaintiff who is a joint and several surety cannot dispute the above act of the defendant. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1 (each letter) of the above mentioned above, the non-party Kim Yong-ok's contract of this case between the defendant and the defendant of this case was entered into on April 1986, the non-party Kim Yong-ok agreed to pay the worker's wage first priority when he receives the work price from the defendant, and the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the defendant for the payment of the obligation of the above contract of this case and the obligation of compensation for damages which the defendant bears to the defendant as the above defendant's joint and several liability of the above contract of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 29, 1986 to February 23, 1988, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation of performance of this case since the delivery of the above assignment order to the plaintiff and the amount of 14,309,769 won of the balance of the entire amount of this case recognized as above to the plaintiff and the amount of damages for delay at the rate of 2,50% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. The judgment of the court below is erroneous because it is partially different from the judgment below which partially accepted the plaintiff's appeal, and it is modified as per the disposition of the court below (However, since the plaintiff did not appeal to the plaintiff and the late payment damages as to the above part as set forth in Article 96, 89, 92, and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)