1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff (appointed party) shall be revoked.

As to the plaintiff's claim for payment of indirect construction costs against the defendant as the lawsuit in this case, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff, the debtor of the above seizure and collection order, due to the seizure and collection order against the above indirect construction cost claim, lost the standing to file a performance lawsuit against the above indirect construction cost claim, which is the seized claim.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work with the Defendant without dispute between the designated parties, and that the Plaintiff had the right to claim indirect construction costs pursuant to the above contract for construction work. Since the joint supply and demand organization with the method of joint performance basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da49620, Dec. 12, 2000); the claim against the contractor is, in principle, attributable to the members of the joint supply and demand organization. Thus, one of the members cannot claim against the contractor at his own discretion for payment according to the ratio of the shares in the joint supply and demand organization, barring special circumstances, and it cannot be subject to compulsory execution against the obligation against the contractor of the joint supply and demand organization with one of its members as the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da4401, Aug. 26, 1997; 200Da68924, Feb. 23, 2001).

Basic Facts

This Court's explanation on this part.