In respect of the seized claims under the effect of seizure and collection, the defendant shall pay the amount corresponding to the Republic of Korea.

The defendant is liable to pay the amount of attached claims and delay damages to the plaintiff for the construction price claim that has the effect of seizure and collection of claims in Korea.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016 Gohap 51718 Collection Money

1. Korea;

1. AAA Stock Company;

September 1, 2016

September 22, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,026,488,950 with 15% interest per annum from March 11, 2016 to the date of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Construction contracts between the defendant and the BBB

1) On April 22, 2013, the Defendant, as the operator of theCC creation project, concluded a contract for the instant construction work with the term of contract of 2,845,700,000 won (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) and the term of construction from April 22, 2013 to May 25, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”).

2) BB completed the construction work under the instant construction contract.

B. Attachment of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price of this case

1) In the event that BB fails to pay taxes of KRW 32,860,820, including value-added tax and wage and salary income tax, the Seocho Tax Office attached the amount payable to BB’s Defendant on August 14, 2013 until the unpaid amount of the instant construction cost claim against BB, and notified the Defendant thereof and served around that time.

2) 원고 산하 ㅇㅇ세무서는 BBBB이 법인세 등 863,729,990원의 세금을 체납하자, 2013. 9. 28. BBBB 및 주식회사 지엔케이의 피고에 대한 이 사건 공사대금채권 중 체납액 상당액을 압류하고, 이를 피고에게 통지하여 그 무렵 송달되었다.

3) 위 ㅇㅇ세무서는 BBBB이 부가가치세, 법인세, 근로소득세 등 873,585,880원의 세금을 체납하자, 2014. 2. 10. BBBB의 피고에 대한 이 사건 공사대금채권 중 체납액 상당액을 압류하고, 이를 피고에게 통지하여 그 무렵 송달되었다.

4) 위 ㅇㅇ세무서는 BBBB이 부가가치세, 근로소득세 등 80,685,710원의세금을 체납하자, 2014. 4. 2. BBBB의 피고에 대한 이 사건 공사대금채권 중 체납액 상당액을 압류하고, 이를 피고에게 통지하여 그 무렵 송달되었다.

C. Payment of the instant construction cost by the Defendant

From May 16, 2013 to January 29, 2015, the Defendant paid 1,808,000,000 won in total to the subcontractors of BBB or BB over 37 times, or paid FF and GGGGG, for which BB’s claim for construction cost against the Defendant was transferred.

D. The amount of arrears by BB as of the filing date of the instant lawsuit

As of March 4, 2016, the filing date of the instant lawsuit, BBB, which is the preserved claim for the seizure and collection of the above claims, remains 1,026,48,950 won (=total of KRW 667,255,820 + total of KRW 359,233,130).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, 13, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the Defendant’s claim for construction payment of this case 1,037,70,000 won (=2,845,700,000 won - 1,808,000,000 won) remaining after the Defendant paid construction payment to BBB or subcontractor, FF and GGG, exceeds KRW 1,026,48,950 as of March 4, 2016, which is the filing date of the instant lawsuit. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from March 11, 2016, which is the day following the date on which a copy of the complaint of this case was served to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion

1) On December 26, 2014, the Defendant transferred the business right of theCC development project toCC, Inc. (hereinafter “CC”), and transferred the ownership of the model hybrid that BB created after completing the instant construction work, toCC. The instant construction cost is paid byCC, the owner of the model hybrid, and the Defendant is not obligated to pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff.

2) BB prior to notifying the Defendant of the attachment of the instant claim for construction payment against the Defendant by the Plaintiff, the Defendant already paid the instant construction payment to the other obligees. Moreover, as the instant construction payment was planned to be settled among BB and the Defendant, the claims that the Plaintiff could collect to the Defendant remain at KRW 779,480,93. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay only KRW 779,480,993 out of the instant construction payment.

B. Determination

1) There is no obligation to pay the instant construction cost any longer due to the transfer of ownership of the model house.

As to the assertion, the contractor shall not be deemed to bear the obligation of the third party, unless there is any circumstance to deem that the contractor transferred the ownership of the object completed by the contractor to a third party from the subcontractor to the subcontractor, and that the third party has taken over the obligation to pay the contractor. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to deem that theCC has taken over the obligation to pay the construction price to the Defendant’s BB as the ownership of the new model hybrids was transferred from the Defendant to the subcontractor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (In addition, according to the each statement of evidence No. 9-2 and No. 1 (Business Agreement), according to Article 3(4) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (Article 3(4).

Even if the CC agreed to take over the Defendant’s obligation to pay construction price to BB, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff on the ground that the act of disposing of the claim after the Plaintiff’s attachment became effective.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) As to the assertion that only KRW 779,480,993 exists in the claims that the Plaintiff could collect, as seen earlier, there is no evidence suggesting that, in addition to the construction cost that the Defendant had already paid to BB or subcontractor, FF and GGG, the Defendant had already paid prior to the Plaintiff’s notification of seizure and collection of the claim for the construction cost of this case, or that there was a financial calculation of the construction cost of this case between BBB and the Defendant (if the Defendant and the Defendant have settled the construction cost of this case after the Plaintiff’s notification of seizure and collection of the Plaintiff’s claim, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff on this ground).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.