An agreement on direct payment by subcontract transactions shall have no effect of attachment thereafter, unless it has been agreed upon between the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor.

The Defendant’s seizure order was completed on April 2, 2014, before the service at 00 times, and the instant construction was completed, and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff, who is the subcontractor, was extinguished within the extent of the amount equivalent to the subcontract price already paid at 00 times before the seizure order of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea was served at 00 times.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Confirmation of Suwon District Court 2014Kadan435 Deposit Withdrawal Right

AA

Republic of Korea Overseas 10

March 19, 2015

April 16, 2015

1. The Plaintiff and Defendant BBB Co., Ltd., CCC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, JJ, and the Republic of Korea confirm that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit KRW 79,480,00, out of the KRW 116,234,320 deposited by the head of Suwon District Court on May 23, 2014 *** the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit KRW 79,480,00, out of the KRW 116,234,320 deposited by the head of 1484.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant KK and LL Construction Co., Ltd. is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is assessed against the remaining Defendants, respectively. The office is in office.

Paragraph 1, and between the Plaintiff and Defendant KK and LL Construction Co., Ltd. ** market price

On May 23, 2014, it is confirmed that the claim for payment of deposit KRW 79,480,00, out of KRW 116,234,320 deposited by Geumwon District Court** on May 23, 2014, the branch court was the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Conclusion of a subcontract;

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB”) under which Defendant BB will accept the subcontract (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”). The Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”) with Defendant BB to set the construction cost of KRW 000 and the construction period from November 12, 2013 to January 25, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”).

B. During the construction process under the instant subcontract, the Plaintiff entered into a direct payment agreement on the subcontract price (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”) with the City/Do and Defendant BB with the following content:

① In the subcontract between a contractor and a subcontractor under the above construction contract, the subcontract consideration shall be paid directly to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on Industry, Article 29 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree

(2) In principle, when a direct payment method and procedure for the subcontract consideration and completion inspection are conducted, a request shall be made by classifying the details of the portion performed by a subcontractor and the request for the payment of the subcontract consideration shall also be made separately. In extenuating circumstances, the defendant large-scale global application and request may be made en bloc, but the subcontract consideration shall be directly

**The obligation to pay the price to Defendant BB in the city and the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff by Defendant BB in accordance with Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act is deemed to be extinguished within the scope of the obligation.

다. 공사의 중단, 완료 및 공사대금의 미지급 ��이 사건 공사는 2013. 12. 23.부터 2014. 2. 28.까지 중단되었고, 이후 피고 대도 글로벌은 2014. 4. 2. 이 사건 공사를 완료하고 2014. 4. 15. 준공검사를 받았다. ��한편, **시는 이 사건 직불합의에 따라 2013. 12. 31.까지 1차 기성분으로 원고에게 27,070,000원을 지급하였고, 피고 BBB은 **시로부터 이 사건 공사대금 중116,234,320원을 지급받지 못하였다.

D. On May 23, 2014, the deposited person is either the Plaintiff or the Defendant BB, and the deposited KRW 116,234,320 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”) with the Defendant BB’s deposit of KRW 116,234,320 (based on recognition / [the grounds] deposit of KRW 116,234,320 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”) under the Civil Execution Act, Article 48(1) of the Civil Act, the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the claims, provisional seizure, and seizure by other creditors of the Defendant BB against the Defendant BB could not be known due to the competition of claims and seizure, etc. among the Plaintiff who did not request payment of the subcontract price even though the Plaintiff had reached a direct payment agreement in the instant case.

A. Article 14 (1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act provides that "the ordering person shall pay directly to the subcontractor the subcontract price corresponding to the part of manufacture, repair, construction or service performed by the subcontractor if any cause falling under any of the following subparagraphs occurs," and subparagraph 2 provides that "any of such causes shall be one of the cases where the ordering person has agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor by the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor," and the provision of paragraph (2) provides that "any obligation of the ordering person to pay the subcontract price and any obligation of the prime contractor to pay the subcontractor the subcontract price to the subcontractor shall be deemed extinguished within the scope of the cause where any cause referred to in paragraph (1) occurs."

The purport of Article 14 (2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act is to stipulate that, in light of the provisions of Article 14 (1) of the same Act, "the case where the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor agree to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor," and the ordering person does not have the obligation to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, but the subcontract price corresponding to the portion manufactured, repaired, constructed, or provided by the subcontractor."

It is reasonable to interpret that the obligation to pay directly to the subcontractor to the subcontractor (i.e., the occurrence of the origin due to the implementation of construction works must be necessary) and that the obligation to pay to the principal contractor shall be extinguished within the scope of such obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da6311, Sept. 12, 2013).

(see, see, e.g., the terms of the direct payment agreement)

Within the extent of the completion of the execution or work, the contractor shall directly pay the work price to the subcontractor.

If the principal contractor does not pay the work price, then the principal contractor does not pay the work price:

The subcontractor shall actually implement the above construction before the notification of the seizure order reaches the contractor.

The original contractor's obligation to pay the construction cost according to the completion of the contract or the degree of the origin of the contract;

within the scope of the subcontract price equivalent to the portion of the subcontractor’s performance;

Whether or not to set up a defense and its scope vary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2049, Apr. 27, 1990).

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant KK and LL Construction Co., Ltd.

As seen earlier, the instant construction was suspended from December 23, 2013 to February 28, 2014; and

**The City has already paid to the Plaintiff the subcontract price for the first completed portion by December 31, 2013.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received the entire subcontract price before the discontinuance of construction work.

It is reasonable to view that it is reasonable.

However, from the resumption of construction, seizure and provisional seizure order of the above Defendants* at the time of service

B B Between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s performance of the subcontracted project, and the origin thereof can be identified.

There is no evidence (Evidence submitted by the Plaintiff) and there is only the fairness rate of the entire construction before the discontinuance of the construction.

The order of seizure and provisional seizure of the above Defendants after the resumption of construction * at *

Before the commencement of the subcontracted construction work by the Plaintiff and the end of the subcontracted construction work by the said Defendants cannot be identified).

As no circumstance exists, such as the invalidation or revocation of seizure or provisional seizure, etc.

due to the resumption of construction before being served with the seizure, provisional seizure, etc. of the

The right of subscription has occurred or* the obligation to pay the construction price to the defendant BB in the city * the plaintiff's subordinate to the plaintiff

No loss shall be deemed to have occurred within the scope of the amount payable.

Therefore, the aforementioned Defendants’ attachment or provisional attachment constitutes part of the Plaintiff’s subcontracted work before being served.

* within the scope of the money ** expiration of the obligation to pay the construction cost to the defendant BB at the time

The plaintiff's assertion against the above defendants on the premise that it was based upon the above defendants is without merit.

shall not be effective.

C. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

According to the above facts, a seizure order issued by the defendant Republic of Korea (00 years old) * * transmission at the time

Before April 2, 2014, the Corporation was completed on April 2, 2014, Defendant Republic of Korea

Order of seizure** from 106,568,00 won, the subcontract price ***

To the extent equivalent to KRW 79,498,00,00, after deducting KRW 27,070,000 paid, ** the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the principal contractor, and the subcontractor

It is said that the obligation to pay the subcontract price for the LL Construction has expired.

Ultimately, the Korea Deposit Collection Agency of KRW 79,480,000 among the instant deposit money between the Plaintiff and Defendant Republic of Korea

The right to use the Gu shall be deemed to be the plaintiff, and as long as the plaintiff contests this, the benefit of its confirmation shall also be

I think that it is.

D. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BB

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed the subcontracted construction in accordance with the instant direct payment agreement.

Ro,** the obligation equivalent to the subcontract price for the Defendant LL Construction of the City has ceased to exist.

As such, between the Plaintiff and Defendant LL Construction, the amount of KRW 79,480,00 out of the instant deposit shall be credited.

The right to claim the payment of the deposit shall be considered to be the plaintiff.

E. Regarding claims against Defendant CCC, DDD, EE, FF, GG, HH, and JJ

Judgment

The Defendants led to confession of the Plaintiff’s assertion under Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, in relation to the instant deposit between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants, KRW 79,480,00 out of the instant deposit money.

The right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit is against the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant KK and LL Construction Co., Ltd. is groundless.

The claims against the remaining Defendants shall be dismissed, and the claims against the other Defendants shall be accepted on the grounds of the reasons.