As long as the delinquent's claim is not recognized, the defendant's disposition on default on this premise shall not be effective.

As long as the delinquent taxpayer's right to demand direct payment is not recognized, the seizure and collection order of the remaining Defendants on such premise, provisional seizure of claims, and notification of seizure of claims shall not be effective.

2016da6047 Action to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money

Han ○○○○ Incorporated Company

Republic of Korea and seven others

December 8, 2016

February 9, 2017

1. On December 30, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is confirmed that the Suwon District Court rendered a deposit payment claim for KRW 206,645,106, which was deposited by the Suwon District Court No. 4535 on December 30, 2015 with the Suwon District Court No. 206,645,106.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff subcontracted to Defendant ○ Industry Development Co., Ltd. (former trade name: ○○○○○ Company; hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) the part of the structure and pipeline construction during the installation of the buffer storage facilities of Nonparty ○○○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (former trade name before the alteration; hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) the construction cost of KRW 1,826,00,000 (including value-added tax) and from March 15, 2011 to April 30, 2012. The contents of the said subcontract were modified as follows (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction work”).

around September 2012, Defendant ○ Industrial Development discontinued the instant construction work. At the time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,685,354,894 out of the construction cost for Defendant ○ Industrial Development.

On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings with Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap000. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings, a decision to authorize rehabilitation plans on December 11, 2014, and a decision to terminate rehabilitation proceedings on April 20, 2015.

In the above rehabilitation procedure, Defendant ○○ Industrial Development reported the amount of the instant construction contract and the amount of the progress payment (unpaid additional construction) as rehabilitation claims. The Plaintiff’s administrator raised an objection to the entire amount of the said claims. Accordingly, Defendant ○ Industrial Development filed an application for a final claim inspection judgment with Seoul Central District Court 2013.00, Defendant ○○ Industrial Development filed an application for a final claim inspection judgment with respect to rehabilitation as to the entire amount of the said claims. On December 4, 2014, the said court rendered a decision that “No evidence was found to prove that the instant construction was executed in excess of KRW 1,685,354,894 of the construction cost that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff” on the ground that “No rehabilitation claim against the Plaintiff of ○○ Industrial Development does exist.”

○ Meanwhile, on July 1, 2013, Defendant ○ Industrial Development (i.e., KRW 268,129,098 (i.e., the amount payable 61,483,92) out of the amount of the tax invoice issued + KRW 206,645,106) was not paid, and (ii) requested Nonparty ○ Industrial Development to withhold the payment of KRW 268,129,098 out of the amount of the construction payment to the Plaintiff, and (iii) requested Nonparty ○ Industrial Development to suspend the payment of KRW 268,129,098 out of the amount of the construction payment to be paid to the Plaintiff by Nonparty ○ Industrial Development with the consent of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Nonparty 2

○ The remaining Defendants except for the development of Defendant ○ Industry (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants”) were creditors of Defendant ○ Industry Development, and were subject to a seizure and collection order, provisional seizure, and attachment notification (disposition for arrears) as follows with respect to the construction cost claim (direct payment claim) against Nonparty ○ Industry Development, which Defendant ○○ Industrial Development holds against Nonparty ○○ Industrial Development.

Serial Creditor's Claim Amount (won) Date of service

1. Defendant Korea ○○○

109,857,736 October 7, 2013, the order of seizure and collection, 2013.

2 Defendant KimA

this Court 22,925,923 February 4, 2014

3 Defendant Effective○○○○○

Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2014Kadan100121, provisional attachment No. 25,000,000 on February 28, 2014

4 Defendant AB

In this Court, 276,848,245 July 7, 2014

5 Defendant HighCC

122,238,484, Nov. 25, 2015, 2015.

6 Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: ○○ Tax Office)

Notification of seizure of claims under the National Tax Collection Act (disposition for arrears) 44,206,850 January 22, 2014

7. The defendant National Health Insurance Corporation (competent branch office)

Notice of seizure of claims under the National Health Insurance Act, etc. (disposition for arrears) 108,018,070 January 27, 2014

8. In the jurisdiction of Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation (YY branch offices)

Notice of seizure of claims under the National Health Insurance Act, etc. on February 10, 2014

9. The defendant National Health Insurance Corporation (the Vice Governor of Z North Korea)

Notice of seizure of claims under the National Health Insurance Act, etc. shall be issued on February 2, 2014.

○ Nonparty 2: (a) on December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2: (b) on December 30, 2015, under this Court No. 4535.

○ Industrial Development, 206,645,106 won (hereinafter referred to as “construction cost”) for which payment was deferred as above.

“The deposit of this case” was deposited, and the statutory provisions and the cause of the deposit stated in the certificate of deposit.

The facts are as follows (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit of this case"):

【Legal Provisions】

Article 487 (latter part) of the Civil Act, Article 248 (1) of the Civil House Administrative Court

【Fact of Grounds for Deposit】

Nonparty 1 was liable for the payment to the Plaintiff regarding the construction cost of 206,645,106 of the complete storage facilities for the 1st industrial complex, but the payment was made by Nonparty 2;

1. On the other hand, on the other hand, the following: (a) the development of Defendant ○ Industry is the obligor; (b) the public corporation is the third obligor; and (c) the remaining Defendants’ claims for direct payment of the construction price against the public corporation were premised on the existence of the right to demand direct payment of the construction price

2. The Plaintiff: (a) suspended the payment of the subcontract price for the development of ○ Industry by the above subcontractor; and (b) demanded payment of KRW 206,645,106, which was deferred on November 9, 2015; (c)

The Nonparty Corporation cannot contest the effect of the attachment and collection order, the provisional attachment order, and the attachment order by the remaining Defendants. As long as the validity of the above construction cost remains, the obligee who can receive the above construction cost lawfully and fairly is the Defendant ○ Industrial Development or the Plaintiff cannot be identified, the Nonparty Corporation deposits KRW 206,645,106.

○ The distribution procedure was initiated with respect to the instant deposit deposited by the Nonparty Corporation as the court 2015 another 326.

[Reasons for Recognition]

○ Defendant ○ Industrial Development, KimA, AB, HighCC, and the Republic of Korea: In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

○ Defendant ○○○, effective ○○○○, National Health Insurance Corporation: Confession (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Paragraphs 3 and 1)

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff paid all the construction cost according to the honorable intention to Defendant ○ Industrial Development, Defendant ○ Industrial Development cannot exercise the right to demand direct payment of subcontract consideration against Nonparty ○○ Industrial Development, and the remainder of the Defendants’ claims premised on the existence of the above right to demand direct payment, seizure and collection order, provisional seizure of claims, and notification of seizure of claims are invalid. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right to demand payment of the instant deposit is valid.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The issue of whom the right to claim a payment of the instant deposit belongs to the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○ Industry Development, who is the depositee, is determined depending on whether Defendant ○ Industry Development acquired the right to claim a direct payment of the subcontract price against the Nonparty ○ Industrial Development. The said right to claim a direct payment is premised on the existence of the right to claim a payment of the contract price against the Plaintiff ○ Industry Development.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant ○ Industry Development completed the instant construction, or that Defendant ○ Industry Development completed the instant construction in excess of the amount corresponding to the construction cost (1,685,354,894 won) already received from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to support that Defendant ○○ Industry Development performed the instant construction on the ground that, at the final rehabilitation claim inspection proceedings applied by Defendant ○ Industry Development, it exceeds the construction cost of KRW 1,685,354,894, which was paid by the Plaintiff, in excess of the construction cost of KRW 1,685,35,354,894, which was paid by the Plaintiff, the lower court’s determination that the rehabilitation claim against the Plaintiff of ○○ Industries Development does not exist, and thus, it is not recognized that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the provisional seizure and the payment of the deposit money belongs to the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit in the sense that the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, which is the basis law for the deposit for repayment, and Article 248(1) of the Civil Collection Administrative Court, which is the basis law for the deposit for execution, are all stated in the deposit, and the fact that the cause of the deposit is unknown to creditors as well as the fact that the creditor is served with the seizure and collection order, etc. However, in terms of the deposit for execution, the deposit of this case is a deposit for the creditor as well as the creditor of the execution. In light of the purport of the deposit, in order to claim the withdrawal of the deposit, the deposit of this case is insufficient to have the document proving that the debtor has the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit only in relation to the other person, and in relation to the execution creditor, the document proving the existence of the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit of this case should be prepared and submitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012).

4. Determination as to Defendant 1B and HighCC’s assertion

Defendant AB and HighCC agreed on October 4, 2013 to reduce the unpaid construction cost from KRW 268,129,098 to KRW 120,000,000. As such, Defendant AB and HighCC did not recognize the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 120,000 out of the instant deposit.

The evidence submitted by the above Defendants, including evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12, is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the agreement on reduction of construction price was reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○ Industry Development, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the assertion by Defendant HaB and DaCC based on such premise is without merit to further examine.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.