Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jong-deok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Land Readjustment Project Association (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Man-Ma, Attorneys Nam-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 20, 2005

Daegu District Court Decision 2001Na7922 Delivered on May 29, 2003

1. Based on the main claim changed in exchange at the trial, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 54,280,440 won with 5% per annum from January 21, 2005 to July 8, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining main claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3. 80% of the remainder of the costs of the trial after the exchange alteration of the claim, excluding the portion arising from the participation in the supplementary action, shall be borne by the plaintiff, 20% by the defendant, and the part arising from the participation shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

Main and Preliminary Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 259,780,821 won and 20% interest per annum from January 21, 2005 to the date of full payment (the Plaintiff added the conjunctive claim after changing the previous claim from the trial to the exchange of the main claim).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 131,541,095 won with 25% per annum from July 8, 1997 to May 31, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are as follows: Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-1, evidence 3-1, evidence 3-1, evidence 4-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 8-1 through 3, evidence 10, evidence 11, evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, evidence 2-2, evidence 3-1 through 3, evidence 6, evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 9-11 through 20, Eul evidence 1, 12-1, 16-1 through 107, evidence 17-3 through 17-1, 19-2, and 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 9-11, 12-1, 17-1, 17-3 through 17-2, and 3-1, 2-1, 3-2, and 3-2, respectively.

A. On June 19, 192, the Defendant concluded a contract for all construction works and affairs necessary to achieve the objectives of the instant compartmentalization and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant contract”). On June 19, 192, the Defendant assessed the unit price of non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter “non-party 1 corporation”) and the Defendant Intervenor Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Intervenor Co., Ltd.”) with regard to the amount of land survey, construction survey, authorization for establishment, construction work, lease district suspension work, drainage work, packing work and auxiliary work, and land substitution registration, and assessed the total amount of the land equivalent to 90,000,000,000 won, which correspond to the total amount of the land allotted in recompense for development recompense as KRW 198,715 square meters appropriated for project expenses at the time of the authorization for the execution of the instant compartmentalization and rearrangement project, and assessed the unit price of the land corresponding to the rate of construction price to 198,195,000 won and the total amount of the land allotted for development outlay as KRW 1818,1606,6060,060.

B. However, the non-party 1 company (the intervenor company is the joint contractor of the contract of this case, the actual contractor, the non-party 1 company received progress payment from the defendant) failed to complete the construction by the initial completion date, and the defendant did not complete the construction within the original completion date even if the defendant had been ordered to extend the completion date by one year, and the defendant did not complete the construction within the said period. On November 14, 1995, the completion date between the defendant and the defendant shall be extended by no later than May 30, 1996, and the remainder shall be paid in lump sum after the completion of the construction. However, the materials purchase price by the non-party 1 in the process of the construction shall be paid directly to the material company and deducted from the construction price, and if the construction is not completed by the above completion date, the non-party 1 agreed to pay late compensation under the contract of this case

C. Since then, the construction is not completed until October 31, 199, the defendant notified the non-party 1 company and the intervenor company that the contract of this case was rescinded on the ground of the non-party 1's default on obligations, and around November 24, 199, the contract of this case was rescinded at that time. Until that time, the non-party 1 company's completion of the construction of this case was about 91%. The new contract was concluded between the defendant and the intervenor on May 2, 2000 with regard to the remainder of the construction. However, the intervenor company was the wind to demand revision of the terms and conditions of the contract and suspend construction until May 31, 201, and the defendant notified the intervenor of the cancellation of the contract and concluded a contract for the remaining construction with the non-party 1 company on May 8, 2002.

D. Meanwhile, based on the executory statement of the case, such as the registration of transfer of land ownership, etc., against Non-Party 1, the Plaintiff received a decision of seizure and collection of the amount up to KRW 131,541,095, out of the construction price claims that Non-Party 1 had against the Defendant on July 7, 1999, on the basis of the executory statement of mediation concerning the registration of transfer of land ownership, etc., Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu Branch of 98Y1526 (No. 96Ga68) against Non-Party 1, the Plaintiff received a decision of seizure and collection of the amount up to KRW 131,541,09,00 from among the construction price claims that Non-Party 1 had against the Defendant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant on September 27, 1998, "110,000 and the amount at the rate of 25% per annum from August 1, 1998.

(3) The Defendant: (a) transferred 10 square meters to Nonparty 1 company; (b) 39,389,000 square meters in total; (c) 9,000 square meters in 16 square meters in 196 square meters in 20; (b) 9,000 square meters in 16 square meters in 20; (c) 9,000 square meters in 16 square meters in 20; (d) 96 square meters in 196 square meters in 20; and (e) 9,000 square meters in 16 square meters in 20; and (e) 9,000 square meters in 16 square meters in 20; and (e) 9,000 square meters in 16 square meters in 198 square meters in 20; and (e) transferred 18,000 square meters in 20,000 square meters in 16,000 square meters in 196.

F. In addition, even after September 29, 1999 when the decision of seizure of this case was delivered to the Defendant, the Defendant transferred the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay (hereinafter referred to as the “land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense”) recorded in the list of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense (hereinafter referred to as the “sale recompense for development recompense of this case”) to a third party other than the non-party 1 to pay the construction price of this case, and changed the name of the owner of the land in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for the future as of

G. After that, the compartmentalization and rearrangement project of this case was completed on January 20, 2005, and at that time, the disposition of replotting against the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay was publicly announced.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the Defendant, who is the garnishee, shall not dispose of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay of this case to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 as the obligor of this case’s attachment decision, and even if he is responsible to keep the land with the care of good manager, the seizure decision of this case does not have the effect of disposing of the land in recompense for development outlay of this case. The Plaintiff asserts that, using the fact that the land in this case’s attachment decision does not have the effect of disposing of the land in substitution for development outlay of 2 through 8, 12, 13, 15, 17 through 22, 26, 29, and 31, the land in recompense for development recompense for development outlay of this case’s principal and the list of the land in recompense for development recompense for development outlay of 19, 780, 821 (the above land in lieu for the non-party 1’s disposal of the land in this case’s redemption order to the non-party 20.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the main claim

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

(A) Where the right to request the transfer of ownership is seized, the third party obligor shall not arbitrarily perform the registration of transfer to the debtor according to the validity of prohibition of repayment. However, such seizure is not limited to the real estate which is the object of the right to claim the registration, and it is effective only between the creditor, the debtor and the third party obligor because there is no method of public announcement thereof in the register other than serving the debtor's decision on the third party obligor, and it cannot be asserted that the seizure of the right to claim the transfer of ownership is effective against the third party who has made the transfer registration from the third party obligor or the debtor because there is no physical effect of prohibiting the disposal of the real estate which is the object of the right to claim the transfer registration, the third party obligor shall not claim the cancellation of the registration acquired from the third party obligor or the debtor, and if the third party obligor causes damages to the creditor again by the transfer registration of the land to the third party, it shall be deemed that the transferee constitutes a tort and the transferee of the land is liable for damages arising therefrom (see Supreme Court Decision 202Da3971, Oct. 25, 20002).

(B) The Defendant returned to the instant case, as seen earlier, while receiving the instant attachment order, transferred the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for the instant seizure to a third party, and changed the name of the owner on the land ledger for the third party, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the transfer of land to the Plaintiff, the execution creditor, among the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for the instant sale, for which Nonparty 1 had the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the Defendant, constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff.

(C) The defendant and the non-party 1 agreed to transfer the land allotted by the development recompense to the non-party 1 as payment of the price for the construction to the non-party 1's creditors, including subcontractors, etc. for the construction of this case, and for the implementation of the agreed matters, after being served with the decision of seizure of this case, it is merely changed the name of the owner on the ledger of the land allotted by the development recompense for the sale of this case. Thus, the decision of seizure of this case does not affect the sale of this case, and thus, the defendant is not liable for damages.

In light of the legal principles on the method of transferring land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay as seen earlier, in case where the land readjustment project executor designates the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development recompense before a land substitution disposition and disposes of it to a third party, if the purchaser satisfies any of the requirements in the register of land transfer or registration in the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development recompense, the obligation of the project executor to the purchaser of the land shall be deemed to have been completed. In case where an agreement on the transfer of land was reached but the transferee fails to meet any of the requirements in the register of land transfer or the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development recompense of development recompense, the transferee's right to claim for transfer registration of ownership against the project executor shall continue to exist. Thus, in case where an agreement on the transfer of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development recompense of development recompense is

As seen above, although the defendant and the non-party 1 agreed on November 14, 1995, before being served with the attachment decision of this case, that the non-party 1 transferred the development recompense land to the non-party 1's creditors such as subcontractors related to the construction project of this case as the payment of the price for the construction of this case, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is the execution creditor, unless the defendant delivered the development recompense land to the non-party 1 or the non-party 1's third party designated before being served with the contents of the agreement or changed the name of the owner of the development recompense land in the name of the non-party 1 or the non-party 3 in the name of the non-party 1 or the third party before being served with the attachment decision of this case, unless the defendant delivered the development recompense land to the non-party 1 or the non-party 1's third party to the non-party 1 or the non-party 1, 200.

(D) Next, the defendant cancelled the contract of this case on October 22, 199 on the ground of the non-party 1's default, and in the case of the seizure of claims, the attachment of claims is not binding on the debtor's disposal of legal relations which are the cause of the claim, such as rescission of the contract. The defendant concluded a new construction contract with the intervenor company on May 2, 200, and entered into a new construction contract with the intervenor company on May 2, 200, the intervenor company and the non-party 1 entered into a special agreement that the completed portion executed by the intervenor company and the non-party 1 company as joint beneficiaries shall be deemed to have been resolved and settled without any objection, and therefore, the decision of seizure of this case does not affect the conclusion of the contract of this case on May 2, 20

In this case, if the defendant cancelled the contract of this case with the non-party 1, the non-party 1 cannot be exempted from the obligation to transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 prior to the cancellation of the contract, and the non-party 1 cannot be exempted from the obligation to transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 before the cancellation of the contract, and the non-party 1 cannot be exempted from the obligation to transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, even if the non-party 1 entered into a new contract after the cancellation of the contract of this case and entered into a new agreement with the intervenor company, this is effective only between the intervenor and the defendant, and the non-party 1 does not have any effect on the plaintiff's disposal of the land allotted by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 in order to bring the land secured by the non-party 1 to the disposal of the land secured by the non-party 1.

Furthermore, as to whether Nonparty 1 has a right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the whole sale of the instant land secured by the recompense for development outlay, it is insufficient to recognize that the written evidence Nos. 4, 22, 23, 10-4, and 14 of the evidence No. 9-16, 22, 23, and 10-4, and 14 of the evidence No. 14 was reached between the Defendant and the non-party 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, it is difficult to clearly determine the volume of delayed expenses that the non-party 1 should have taken over from the Defendant, and it is difficult to estimate the quantity of the land in

As seen earlier, since the total construction price of land in recompense land for development outlay is KRW 18,26,190,00, the amount equivalent to 91% of the final maturity of the non-party 1 company is KRW 1,62,232,90 ( KRW 18,266,190,00 x 91/100). The conversion price of land allotted as the foundation before the seizure decision of this case is delivered to the defendant is KRW 13,436,460,89, which is the non-party 1 company's sale of land allotted as recompense for development recompense land from the defendant 16,073.9m2 [16,62,232,90 - 136,460,899] or the list of land allotted as recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for 27m20, the total sale price of land to the plaintiff 17m2, which was disposed of by the defendant.

(E) As to this, the Defendant asserts that, according to the agreement between the non-party 1 and the defendant and the non-party 1 on November 14, 1995, the non-party 1 did not have the obligation to pay the construction price or to transfer the land allotted by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 at the time of delivery of the instant attachment order, if the Defendant combines the land secured by the development outlay directly paid to the material business operator, etc. on behalf of the non-party 1 by issuing a certificate of transfer.

As seen earlier, the disposition of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay is conducted by delivering it to the transferee or by registering the transferee in the register of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have extinguished the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to Nonparty 1 because the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense or issued a certificate of transfer with the material business operators other than Nonparty 1 and the non-party 1 to settle the completed portion of payment between the Defendant and the non-party 1 (the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for the non-party 1 to deliver the land to the material business operators or to enter the name in the register of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the ownership of the land to the non-party 1.

(f) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is not liable for damages since the extinctive prescription has expired as of October 23, 2002, which was three years from October 22, 1999 when the Defendant notified Nonparty 1 Company of the rescission of the instant contract.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim of this case does not exercise his claim against the defendant against the non-party 1, but is an execution creditor of the right to claim the transfer of ownership against the defendant, who disposed of the land allotted by the non-party 1, in violation of the seizure order of this case. Thus, the claim of this case was completed at the time when the land allotted by the non-party 1 disposed of the land allotted by the non-party 1 for development outlay for development outlay for the illegal sale of this case, and its disposition cannot be deemed as a tort against the plaintiff. The claim of the non-party 1 against the defendant is a claim which can only be exercised after the completion of this case's rearrangement project as the right to claim the transfer of ownership of the land allotted by the non-party 1 as the right to claim the transfer of ownership against the non-party 1. However, since the change of ownership in the register of the land allotted by the non-party 1 cannot legally enforce the right to claim the transfer of ownership of the non-party 1's land in recompense for development outlay for development.

(G) Although the Defendant still remains the claim for the construction price of Nonparty 1’s household, the Defendant also asserted that the Defendant extinguished the claim for the construction price against Nonparty 1’s Defendant by offsetting the claim for delayed compensation under the instant contract, the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the land allotted in recompense for development outlay, and the claim for damages incurred by Nonparty 1 by illegally selling the land allotted in recompense for development outlay to Nonparty 2 and 3, along with the Defendant’s former president.

The offset is based on the premise that both parties bear the obligation aimed at the same kind of benefit. However, each of the above claims asserted by the defendant against the defendant against the defendant of the non-party 1 is monetary claims, and since the non-party 1's claim against the defendant is the right to claim the transfer of ownership against the land allotted by the non-party 1, it cannot be deemed that the defendant and the non-party 1 bear the obligation aimed at the same kind of benefit, and therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without any further need to be examined (as seen earlier, the claim for return of unjust enrichment and the damage claim asserted by the defendant are not

(2) Scope of damages

(A) In the case of seizure of the right to claim for ownership transfer registration, in order for the creditor to collect the claim, the creditor shall first transfer ownership to the debtor's name, conduct a compulsory auction on the real estate again, and receive dividends from the auction procedure. Thus, the plaintiff's damages caused by the above tort shall be the amount to be distributed to the plaintiff within the scope of the amount of the seized claim (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da35327, Feb. 11, 2000). The above legal principles apply to the case where the debtor has no other property, and there is no room to apply to the case where the debtor has other property as in this case. However, as in this case, the plaintiff's assertion is not different depending on whether the debtor has other property than the seized claim. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is no longer reasonable, in light of the fact that the land consolidation and rearrangement project of this case was completed on January 20, 2005, it can be seen that the plaintiff had been forced to sell the land secured for development outlay at the same time.

(B) Details of the computation of the amount of dividends

amount available for dividend: 4,205,231,397 won

Since the total market price of 2,297,525,40 won (261,940,800 won + 295,935,922,800 won + + 385,970,200 won + + 472,16,600 won + 372,60,639,100 won + 376,600 won + 376,639,100 won + 860,00 won under the contract price of this case entered as 319,728,174 [1,613,195] as of April 4, 205, and the remaining appraised value of the land allotted in recompense for development outlay of 206,360,306,360,360,360,364, 296, 206, 205, 367, 209, 367, 2964, 25, 27, 364.

【Ground for Recognition: Evidence incurred earlier, the result of a request for appraisal of the market price and the purport of the entire pleadings】

The Plaintiff asserts that the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay abutting on roads 20 meters of the average transaction prices of the land actually sold in the instant case is 453,748 won/m2, and 10 meters of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense abutting on roads, which are 287,374 won/m257,124/m2. Considering the above, the value of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense abutting on roads 8 meters of roads is 257,124/m264,44,434,54, 554,17,058 won, 407,011,956 won, 463,591,737 won, 738,928 won, 79, 832,497 won/m200, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land price per the Plaintiff’s allegation and the real transaction price per the Plaintiff’s allegation.

(b) Amount of claims under the dividend participation (including the amount of claims by the plaintiff): 12,311,810,935 won

In addition to the creditors admitted below, the defendant asserts that both the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the non-party 2 are creditors expected to participate in the distribution of dividends. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above non-party in the defendant's assertion as a monetary claim against the non-party 1 as a monetary claim against the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, 3 are the creditors, non-party 4, 5, and 6 who are not the non-party 1 company and the provisional disposition right holder whose right to claim the transfer registration of ownership in the land secured for recompense for development outlay is preserved. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

- Plaintiff 288,184,931

(110,00,000 won and any amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from August 1, 1998 to January 20, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply)

- Defendant 1,800,000,000 (the claim for delayed compensation under the instant contract)

In addition to the above claims, the defendant asserted that the non-party 1 company's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim for compensation for damages suffered by the defendant by selling the land allotted by the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 (hereinafter "non-party 2, etc."), but the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment does not reach the non-party 1 company's maturity, as seen above, the defendant's claim for sale of unjust enrichment against the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim for compensation for damages against the non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim for sale of unjust enrichment against the non-party 3's non-party 3 and Eul's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 12-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim for sale.

- Nonparty 11 2,13,327,473

[2,329,50,884 won (the sum of 485,80,00 won from June 14, 1996 to November 21, 1996 and 485,80,000 won out of the above amount shall be 5% per annum for 2%, 242,90,000 won per annum for 25%, 19,543,922 won from the following day to January 20, 205, and 19,5% per annum for 19,543,922 won, and the sum of the amounts calculated by 25% per annum for 19,542 won from May 1, 197 to October 1, 1997) minus the appraised value of land secured for recompense for development outlay, 250,000 won per annum for 251,981,9619,9810 square meters per annum for 196.

- Nonparty 1223,186,848

(Amount of 201,175,890 won and 104,00,000 won per annum from March 18, 2004 to January 20, 2005)

- Nonparty 13 1,242,487,943

(Amount of KRW 1,046,398,080 and KRW 370,00,000 per annum from November 7, 2002 to January 20, 2005)

- Nonparty 14 254,53,182

(368,000,000 won, the Plaintiff asserted that the sum of the appraised value of 113,46,818,000 square meters (198,195, 195, 200 won) of one block, 3 lots of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay 194.6 square meters and 3-1 lot of block 194.6 square meters and 183.2 square meters of block 183.2 square meters of land (198,195, 200,000 won) transferred as partial payment for the above claim, but the Plaintiff asserted that the balance of the claim of Nonparty 14 is merely 20,00,000 won on the basis of the statement of

- Nonparty 15 487,815,286

(Amount calculated by the ratio of 25% per annum from October 12, 2001 to January 20, 2005, with respect to KRW 176,850,000, and KRW 342,822,513 and KRW 176,850,000)

- Nonparty 16 52,691,231

(Amount calculated by the ratio of 25% per annum from October 12, 2001 to January 20, 2005 to KRW 390,358,355 and KRW 198,000)

- Nonparty 17 Company 44,000,000

(300,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from June 19, 1995 to January 20, 2005)

The plaintiff asserts that the company is not a creditor who is expected to participate in dividend because it seeks to transfer the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, but the above company seeks to pay the money as a preliminary claim in the same lawsuit, so it is expected that it will participate in dividend.

- Nonparty 18 150,000,000

- Nonparty 19, Nonparty 20 84,370,400 (wages)

- Nonparty 21 9,631,677 (wages)

(Amount calculated by the ratio of 25% per annum from May 26, 2001 to January 20, 2005, to KRW 53,008,938 and KRW 50,950,000)

In determining the creditors who are expected to participate in the attachment of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the above non-party 18, 19, 20, and 21, the creditors who received the provisional attachment and attachment decision thereafter, are not creditors expected to participate in the attachment of this case. However, even the creditors who received the provisional attachment and attachment decision after the attachment decision of this case, as long as they are creditors prior to January 20, 2005, the plaintiff can participate in the attachment of this case and receive dividends, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

- Nonparty 22 300,000,000

- Nonparty 23 140,000,000

- Nonparty 24 1,349,657,534

(Amount of 25% per annum from October 24, 1999 to January 20, 2005 for KRW 693,493,151 and KRW 500,000,00)

- Nonparty 25 Company 46,907,540

- Nonparty 26 165,000,000

- Nonparty 27 410,000,000

- National taxes in arrears 2,139,96,890 won

[Ground for Recognition: The parties are not in dispute, evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 15-1, Eul evidence No. 16-2, 3, 35, 45, Eul evidence No. 22-2 through 7, 9 through 11, and 15 through 20, and the fact inquiry results of this court and the purport of whole pleadings]

The plaintiff asserted that all claims of the non-party 14, 22, 25, 26, and 27 were extinguished by the repayment at the time when the plaintiff was able to enforce compulsory execution, but there is no evidence to acknowledge them.

Telecommunications Amount of the Plaintiff: 288,184,931 won

Amount of claims with preferential payment right: 2,323,998,967 won (wages and national taxes in arrears)

1,881,232,430 won 1,882,430

㉳ 안분배당 받을 집행채권액 : 9,987,811,968원(㉯ - ㉱)

㉴ 원고가 배당받을 금액 : 54,280,440원(㉲ × ㉰/㉳, 원 미만 버림)

B. Determination on the conjunctive claim

On November 14, 1995, the defendant and the non-party 1 agreed to extend the completion date of construction and pay the whole remainder of the construction cost in lump sum after completion of construction. However, as seen earlier, the fact that the non-party 1 agreed to pay the materials purchase price to the material enterpriser directly and deduct it from the construction cost. However, in this case, there is no evidence to prove that the non-party 1 transferred the remainder of the development recompense land to the non-party 1's creditors, such as material enterpriser, etc. who did not have the material cost claim, etc., and there is no evidence to prove that the non-party 1 transferred the development recompense land of this case to the non-party 1's creditors, such transfer cannot be deemed a tort against the non-party 1. Thus, on the premise that the non-party 1 had the damage claim against the defendant, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim seeking the payment of the amount stated in the claim by subrogation of the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1 without any need for further review.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 54,280,440 won for damages for the above recognition and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 21, 2005 to July 8 of the same year, which is the date of the judgment of the court of the case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff's main claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and all of the plaintiff's main claim of this case and the conjunctive claim of this case are dismissed as they are without merit (the judgment of the court of first instance becomes null and void as the claim was changed in exchange for each other). It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges the highest letter of judgment (Presiding Judge)