1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a remodeling construction contract with the Defendant for the “D” located in Gwangju Northern-gu, Seoul, and completed the said construction on or around August 31, 2016, and the Defendant did not pay 68 million won for the remainder of the said construction work, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction work and the damages for delay.

However, in cases where a claim is seized due to the delinquency in payment of national taxes, the obligor cannot pay the obligation to the obligee and should pay it only to the competent tax official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2931, Jan. 17, 1989). Thus, the obligee cannot exercise the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2931, Jan. 17, 1989). If there exists a seizure and collection order, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888 Decided April 11, 200, etc.). According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2000, the head of the Seo-gu District Tax Office attached the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction payment against the Defendant on November 17, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s default of national taxes of KRW 118,384,360, and the head of the Seo-gu District Tax Office urged the Defendant to collect the said claim for the construction payment on February 27, 2017 and pay it by March 3, 2017.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for performance against the above claim for construction price loses its eligibility as a party to the lawsuit, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful.