1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuits, KRW 186,579,590 among the instant lawsuits and their related thereto.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. We examine the legality of the part attached as a result of the disposition on default, among the plaintiff's lawsuits, ex officio loss of qualification due to the disposition on default.

When claims are seized in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default as prescribed by the National Tax Collection Act and the attachment notice is given to the obligor of the attached claims, the head of a tax office shall obtain the right to collect such claims by subrogation of creditors who are delinquent taxpayers, and the obligee who is the delinquent taxpayer shall not exercise the attached claims.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2388 delivered on April 11, 200, 86Meu2476 delivered on April 12, 198, etc.). Meanwhile, the effect of attachment based on a disposition on default takes effect when it is served on the obligor of the seized claim (Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act). Since such attachment is not effective on the subordinate right, it does not extend to the interest or delay damages incurred after the attachment takes effect, and it does not extend to the interest or delay damages incurred after the attachment takes effect.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 16 and the purport of the argument in this case, on March 8, 2018, when the lawsuit in this case was pending, the director of the tax office attached the amount equivalent to the sum of KRW 186,579,590 (i.e., the principal tax 176,385,060 additional dues of KRW 10,194,530) under the collection procedure under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act for collecting the amount of national taxes in arrears, including the Plaintiff’s value-added tax, etc. (i.e., the principal tax 176,385,060 additional dues of KRW 10,194,530), and the defendant notified the attachment and received

According to the above facts of recognition, among the plaintiff's claim for construction cost against the defendant, it has been seized as above.