The validity of an assignment order and seizure of claims made in violation of Article 55 of the Construction Business Act on wage claims arising from construction works.

Article 55 (A) of the Construction Business Act prohibits seizure of wages due to construction works, but the Act prohibits seizure of claims for construction works equivalent to the above wage due to its nature, not by nature, but by social policy consideration. Thus, the Act prohibits seizure of claims based on social policy consideration. Thus, even a claim seizure and assignment order, which was made in violation of the above provision, does not necessarily become null and void as it is merely an unlawful execution method. It is not a matter of course, but is valid unless it is revoked by an objection or immediate appeal against a judgment against an obligor or a third party obligor's execution method.

Article 504 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 55 of the Construction Business Act, Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act

Kim Young-soo

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (84 Gohap3025) in the first instance trial

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,826,458 won with an interest of 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On June 20, 1983.6.20 of the above 1983.6.20, the defendant was awarded 457,00 won for new construction and other construction works of the Seoul National University and 25 through December 31 of the same year. However, on June 28, 198, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 were assigned 80 won for the above 40-60-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-6-7-7-6-7-7-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-7-7-7-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-7-7-8-7-7-7-7-77-7

As to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 4,826,458, which was already paid by the Defendant, out of KRW 70,00,00,00, KRW 168,254,641, out of KRW 452,83,00 which was paid by the Defendant, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 168,254,641, out of KRW 452,83,00 which was paid by the said Corporation to the employees of the said Corporation, and attachment was prohibited pursuant to Article 55 of the Construction Business Act and Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for KRW 40,631,462, KRW 160, KRW 80, KRW 400, KRW 160, KRW 4600, KRW 800, KRW 4632, KRW 64100, KRW 700, KRW 1983.

In full view of each description of Eul evidence Nos. 1 (Standard Contract for Facilities Construction) and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Adjustment of Construction Costs) without dispute over each establishment and the whole purport of pleading, it can be acknowledged that KRW 168,254,641 out of the above construction cost No. 452,83,000 is a wage to be paid to workers of the above construction work, and there is no other counter-proof, and Article 55 of the Construction Business Act and Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prohibit the seizure of wages due to construction work, but the law prohibits the seizure of the above wages due to social policy consideration, and there is no need to further determine that the seizure and assignment order which was made in violation of the above provision is unlawful merely because it is invalid, and that the plaintiff was not subject to a corrective order of the above construction work and the assignment order of the remaining amount of wages due to the above construction work's immediate appeal against the debtor or the obligor's immediate appeal against the execution method.

In addition, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff renounced the claim of the remainder of the total amount of the above total amount from the defendant on May 17, 1984 by receiving the amount of KRW 25,173,542 from the defendant, and thereby giving up the claim of the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense is not sufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 44,826,458 won and damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from July 22, 1984 to the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment below is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are borne to the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)