A claim for construction price under the construction contract of this case is not owned jointly, but it is divided into shares according to their respective shares, respectively.

Even if a joint contractor of construction works has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, all claims which the joint contractor acquires against the contractor in connection with the contract for construction works shall not necessarily be attributed to the joint contractor, but may be attributed to each joint contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract for construction works.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011Guhap2733 Nullification of a seizure disposition

AA Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

April 17, 2012

May 1, 2012

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On September 17, 2004, and March 20, 2007, each attachment on September 20, 2007, against the claim for construction price against Korea by the Defendant against limited liability company B, is confirmed to be null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Before the merger on August 9, 199, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and non-party limited liability company BB (hereinafter “subconference”), CCC Construction, DD Construction, EE Construction, and FF Construction Co., Ltd. constitute a joint contractor with the Plaintiff’s representative (hereinafter “instant joint contractor”); on February 16, 1998 with the Republic of Korea (competent under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea: the following National Land Agency), the “nwest-B Road Expansion and Packing Construction” entered into a contract for construction works with the Plaintiff for the total contract amount of KRW 00, the construction period from February 20, 1998 to May 30, 2007 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), but the contract period was within the specific period of the construction works, etc., within the contract period of the 16th day of February 16, 1998; on March 19, 198; on May 20, 2005.”

B. On September 17, 2004, October 14, 2004, and March 20, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition of seizing the amount equivalent to each amount of delinquent taxes among the construction cost claims of the non-party company against the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 10, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) The assertion that there is no benefit of lawsuit or standing to sue and is unlawful

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity, etc. can be filed by a person who has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of validity of a disposition, etc., and the defendant does not attach the plaintiff's claim for construction price against the non-party company, but does not attach the plaintiff's claim for construction price. Thus, the plaintiff has an indirect interest in the disposition of this case as the GuD of the joint venture of this case. The lawsuit of this case is filed by a person who has no interest in

2) The assertion that the procedure of the previous trial is unlawful without going through the previous trial procedure

The plaintiff is filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case, but its substance does not differ from seeking revocation of the disposition of this case, so it must undergo a prior trial procedure under Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it goes through a prior trial procedure.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion that there is no benefit of lawsuit or standing to sue, and thus is unlawful

Since a joint supply and demand company basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, if one of its members was in the position of a manager as a representative of a joint supply and demand company, it shall be deemed that the members had a relationship with a manager of a partnership under the Civil Act (Supreme Court Decision 9Da49620 delivered on December 12, 200). In this regard, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition in this case was made against the claim for construction cost of this case, which is the quasi-joint supply and demand company's quasi-joint supply and demand company's quasi-joint supply and demand company's quasi-joint supply and demand company's property, which is not the non-party company's own property, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit in this case has legal

2) As to the allegation that the procedure of the previous trial is unlawful without going through the procedure

However, according to Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, administrative litigation claiming that a disposition under tax-related Acts is unlawful and seeking its revocation cannot be filed without going through a prior trial procedure, such as a request for examination and a request for trial under the same Act. However, this is also applicable to a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition. According to Article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 18 of the same Act, which provides for the principle of administrative appeals, shall not apply mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition. Accordingly, it is not necessary to go through a prior trial procedure in filing a lawsuit for the purpose of confirming that the disposition in this case is null and void. Thus, the defendant's objection to this part of this case is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Unless there are special circumstances, a joint supply and demand company consisting of the Plaintiff and other construction companies shall have the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act. The claim of a partnership shall be vested in all members of the partnership, and barring any special circumstance, a creditor of one of its members shall not perform compulsory execution on the claim of the partnership with the executor of the partnership's individual debtor. Thus, the defendant's disposal of the claim for construction price of this case, which is the claim of a joint supply and demand company held by a joint supply and demand company on the ground of the non-party company's delinquency in payment of joint supply

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c)a recognition;

1) At the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract, six companies, including the Plaintiff, prepared a “joint supply and demand standard agreement” and the main contents are as follows.

2) Each construction cost on the completed portion of the instant construction contract was deposited in each of the accounts under Article 8 of the Standard Contract for Joint Supply and Demand in accordance with the ratio of shares of the joint supply and demand DD companies, including the Plaintiff (However, a part of the construction cost against the non-party company was reserved due to the non-party company’s default).

3) According to Article 11(1) of the Guidelines for Joint Operation Contracts (established by Accounting Rules 2200.04-136-4, January 1, 97), effective January 1, 1997, the public official in charge of contracts shall require the representative of the joint contractor to submit an application classified by the Gu DD when he/she pays advance payment, consideration, etc.: Provided, That if the representative of the joint contractor is unable to submit an application due to unavoidable reasons, such as default, bankruptcy, etc., he/she may have all other parts of the joint contractor submit the application jointly. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the public official in charge of contracts shall pay the amount applied for in accordance with the above Paragraph (1) to the representative of the joint contractor if the joint contractor is a joint contract by the joint execution method, and Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the payment shall be made in accordance with the contents of the joint contractor's representative and each part of the performance of the former DD.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Even if the joint supply and demand organization basically has the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, all the claims of the joint supply and demand organization to the contractor should be reverted to DD in connection with the contract for the construction work, but can be attributed to each contractor in accordance with the terms of the contract for the construction work (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da75332 delivered on January 11, 2002). We examine the above facts and the facts of the above disposition and the facts of the evidence No. 10-1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.