Where a contractor and a contractor agree to pay the contract price to the contractor directly to the contractor’s workers as the payment of the contract price, whether the contractor may set up against all creditors of the contractor’s claim for the contract price due to the above reasons (affirmative)

In accordance with an assignment order, the entire claim shall be transferred from the execution obligor to the execution obligee without maintaining the identity, and the third obligor may set up against the entire obligee as a defense against the execution obligee prior to the seizure of the claim. Thus, if the contractor and the subcontractor agree to pay the work price to the contractor directly to the contractor’s workers as the payment of the wages, the contractor may refuse the payment of the work price equivalent to the contractor’s wages to the contractor’s workers, and therefore, the entire obligee may set up against the aforementioned defenses.

Articles 563 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 115 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1549, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Chang-sik (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yoon Yong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na40120 delivered on November 19, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In accordance with an assignment order, the entire claim is transferred from the execution obligor to the execution obligee without maintaining the identity, and the third obligor may oppose against all obligees as a defense that had been possessed by the execution obligee prior to the seizure of the claim. Thus, if the contractor and the subcontractor agree to pay the construction cost to the contractor directly to the contractor as the payment of the wages to the contractor’s workers, the contractor may refuse the payment of the construction cost equivalent to the contractor’s wages to the contractor’s workers, and therefore, the entire obligee may oppose against the obligor with the aforementioned defense (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu545, Aug. 14, 1984).

In the same purport, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to assignment order as asserted in the ground of appeal, on the ground that the agreement between the defendant and the defendant and his employees on the part of the worker of the Daeeeeeeeegggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg,

2. According to the records, even if the court below examined each content of the written consent for non-payment of the progress payment and the written consent for reservation of the warranty bond, it is just that it is not possible for the workers, etc. to pay the amount corresponding to the warranty bond among the construction price as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)