Where the amount of claims subject to prohibition of seizure cannot be classified formally and uniformly by the contract or the subcontract itself as long as the amount of claims subject to seizure among the construction price claims subject to seizure at the time of the issuance of an order of seizure, the effect of prohibition of seizure shall affect

In Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the prohibition of seizure of the amount equivalent to the wages to be paid to workers of the relevant construction work out of the contract amount of the construction work for which the constructor has received a contract is awarded, due to the demand of social security under the Constitution to guarantee the right to life of workers at a minimum. Therefore, an order of seizure is null and void because the scope of the wage claims prohibited from seizure under Article 84(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is in violation of the compulsory law. However, as long as the scope of the wage claims prohibited from seizure is the sum of the wages indicated in the calculation sheet among the contract amount of the construction work under Article 84(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and it is clearly stated that the amount of the wage calculated by the ordering person of the said construction work (including the contractor in cases of a subcontract) is limited to the amount specified in the contract or subcontract document, the contract or subcontract document does not distinguish the amount and other construction expenses.

Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorney Park Jae-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

lender Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hanl, Attorneys Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2004Na3054 decided Jan. 21, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

In Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the prohibition of seizure on the amount equivalent to the wages to be paid to workers of the relevant construction work out of the contract amount of the construction work for which a constructor receives a contract is awarded, due to the demand of social security under the Constitution to guarantee the right to life of workers at a minimum. Therefore, an order of seizure is null and void because the scope of the wage claims prohibited from seizure under Article 84 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is in violation of the compulsory law. However, as long as the scope of the wage claims prohibited from seizure is the sum of the wages indicated in the calculation sheet among the contract amount of the construction work under Article 84 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and it is clearly stated that the amount of the wage calculated by the ordering person of the said construction work (including the contractor in case of a subcontract) is limited to the amount specified in the contract or subcontract document, the contract or subcontract document does not distinguish the amount and other construction expenses.

The judgment of the court below that each of the subcontract agreements between the defendant, the subcontractor, and the non-party company, the subcontractor, does not have the effect of prohibiting seizure under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles of prohibiting seizure under the same Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In light of the records, there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant, based on the provisions of Article 22 of the subcontract agreement of this case until the closing of argument in the court below, paid directly to the employees of the non-party company in the amount of the construction work corresponding to the above amount of the construction work, and the defendant extinguished the obligation corresponding to the above amount of the construction work, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's defense under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry belongs to the defendant's defense under the prohibition of seizure under Article 22 of the above subcontract contract of this case. Thus, there is no error of law

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)