(영문) 대전지방법원 2016. 07. 07. 선고 2016가합15 판결

(hereinafter referred to as “E Construction”), FF Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “FF Electricity”), Plaintiff BBG case, and Company GG

The defendant under the Subcontract Act or the Framework Act on the Construction Industry between the Industry glass (hereinafter referred to as the "GG Industry")

The subcontractors agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractors, and the subcontractors each of the instant cases

Before the attachment decision was served, the subcontracted work was completed. Accordingly, the defendant around that time.

The defendant's liability to pay the amount to the subcontractor was incurred and the defendant's payment to AA Construction.

- 9-

debt has ceased to its extent. Accordingly, the Defendant’s debt 131,220,000, FF

Offices of KRW 235,400,00 for electricity, KRW 297,00,00 for Plaintiff BB, and KRW 31,900 for the GG industry

As a result, 695,520,000 won was paid lawfully.

The plaintiffs have made a direct payment agreement in accordance with the Subcontract Act.

The contractor shall carry out the construction and directly notify the project owner of the price equivalent to the execution portion.

A claim for direct payment occurs only upon request for payment, and the price to the contractor by the project owner.

The obligation to be paid is extinguished within the scope of the subcontract price, and the seizure and collection decision of this case

There is no evidence to prove that there was a request for payment by the above subcontractors until they are served;

The above assertion that payment cannot be set up against the plaintiffs.

Accordingly, under the following, the defendant's lower limit who made a direct payment agreement pursuant to the Subcontract Act:

This paper examines when the liability for the direct payment of the wage arises (Article 14(2) of the Subcontracting Act)

If the defendant's liability for direct payment of the subcontract price arises, the defendant's payment for AA Construction

The amount of debt shall be extinguished within the extent of the amount of debt).

2) Legal principles

The purpose of Article 14 (2) of the Subcontracting Act is to amend the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article.

In other words, the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor who directly pays the subcontract price to the subcontractor; and

(2) If the contract is agreed upon between the subcontractor and the subcontractor, the project owner shall immediately

not an obligation to pay directly to a person, but a "contractor" manufactures, repairs, constructs, or executes a contract; or

the subcontractor shall have the obligation to pay directly to the subcontractor the subcontract price equivalent to the service performed.

to the extent that the principal contractor’s liability to pay the principal contractor is extinguished.

It is reasonable to interpret that the subcontractor is above before the notification of the seizure order reaches the defendant.

- 10 -

AA according to whether the construction has been actually implemented or completed or the degree of its origin, etc.

the execution of the subcontractor’s construction contract claim; or

Whether the scope of the contract amount can be set up within the scope of the contract amount and the scope thereof vary (Supreme Court Decision 2013.

9. Supreme Court Decision 2011Da6311 Decided December 12, 201

3) In the instant case:

A) AA Construction, the defendant, and EE Construction on November 2014, the defendant's construction act, the construction industry basic, and the construction industry basic.

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the law, with respect to the construction of soil of this case for EE Construction, a subcontractor

A written agreement on direct payment of subcontract consideration to be directly paid shall be prepared by the defendant.

Around March 20, 2015, around 2015, KRW 131,220,000 was paid to the side of EE Construction. The instant construction is the EE Construction.

Corporation, FF Electric Construction, Plaintiff BBGG Construction, glass for the GG Industry

Gg. Plaintiff BB lecture was conducted in the order of the EE Construction, and the EE Construction’s soil removal is the Corporation.

10.Before completion (No. 6 evidence, witness DD's testimony, the purpose of the whole pleadings).

Therefore, the defendant on November 2014 before the notification of the seizure order of this case reaches the defendant (the defendant on November 2014)

At the time of the contact and payment agreement) the E E Construction had a duty to pay directly the construction cost claim of KRW 131,220,000.

In addition, the payment obligations for AA Construction were extinguished within the scope of this.

Ultimately, the defendant can oppose the plaintiffs and intervenors by the above repayment.

B) On November 17, 2014, the Defendant’s construction, the Defendant, and the FF Electricity, with respect to FF Electricity.

I prepared a written agreement to directly pay subcontract consideration for electrical construction;

On March 20, 2015, the Defendant paid FF electrical KRW 235,400,000. Meanwhile, DD’s attitude is a witness.

Young Electrical Construction, which was completed on or around December 2014, was testified as above.

Since the completed soil gate on October 2014 was conducted after the construction work, the seizure of Plaintiff CCC was conducted.

- 11 -

It is deemed that the electrical construction has been completed almost on December 19, 2014, which was delivered to the defendant by the notice of order.

It is reasonable (Evidence No. 5, Witness DD's testimony, the purpose of the whole pleadings).

Therefore, the Defendant’s construction works in F.F. electricity before the notice of the seizure order of this case reaches the Defendant

The AA Construction has a duty to pay the price of KRW 235,400,000 directly within that scope.

The obligation to pay the construction price was extinguished.

Ultimately, the defendant can oppose the plaintiffs and intervenors by the above repayment.

C) AA Construction, Plaintiff BB River, on November 17, 2014, the Defendant’s instant case to Plaintiff BB River.

An agreement that shall directly pay the subcontract price for creative and miscellaneous works during the construction work;

Done up to March 20, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 297,000,000 to Plaintiff BB River. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid KRW 297,00,000 to Plaintiff BB River.

A witness DD testified that the Plaintiff BB lecture was completed on February 2015, 2015.

As seen, after the completion of the electrical construction on December 2014, Plaintiff BBG works were carried out;

As the instant construction was completed on March 3, 2015, the notification of the seizure order for Plaintiff BBG to the Defendant

On February 23, 2015, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff BBG construction was completed almost on the basis of the completion of the construction work (BBG).

No. 4, Witness Dodd's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings). Accordingly, the defendant around that time

The Corporation has a duty to pay the construction cost of KRW 297,00,000 to the case and to the extent that the Corporation has a duty to pay the AA construction cost.

The obligation to pay the construction price was extinguished.

However, on February 23, 2015, Plaintiff BB river, and each claim attachment and collection order received by CCC are issued.

On December 19, 2014, the Intervenor’s attachment notice was served on and around April 6, 2015 to the Defendant as seen earlier.

As seen earlier, the above repayment is subsequent to the Plaintiff BBG case and the Intervenor’s subsequent attachment in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier.

in the relationship with such person, the claim for the construction cost equivalent to the above amount shall be made effective as against such person.

However, the defendant extinguished the claim for the construction price of this case by the above payment.

- 12-

CCC cannot be set up against it.

D) On October 30, 2014, AA Construction set the construction cost for the GG industry during the instant construction to the Defendant on October 30, 2014

The plaintiff submitted a power of delegation to the plaintiff BB lecture to the effect that he/she delegated his/her authority to the plaintiff

BB Case requires the Defendant to pay directly the subcontract price for the GG industry glass.

A. On April 7, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 31,900,000 to the GG industry. On the other hand, the witness is a witness.

w the GG industry glass Corporation testified that it was completed on February 2015, and this case’s construction was completed.

On March 3, 2015, the notification of the seizure order for Plaintiff BBGs reaches the Defendant on March 3, 2015.

2. At around 23.0: it is reasonable to deem that the glass construction of the GG industry has been completed almost (No. 7, No. 1000).

The defendant's testimony and the purport of the whole argument of the DDR. Accordingly, the defendant's construction price in the GG industry around that time.

31,900,000 won was obligated to pay and to the extent that the payment is made for AA Construction.

However, each claim attachment and collection order received by the Plaintiff BBG case and CCC was extinguished.

The notice of attachment of the Intervenor was served on February 23, 2015 and December 19, 2014; and on April 6, 2015, the notice of attachment of the Intervenor was served on the Defendant.

The facts are as seen earlier, and thus, the above repayment is subsequently seized in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier.

BBD Cases, with respect to the Intervenor, due repayment to the Intervenor, and with respect to their relationship, the equivalent of the above amount.

The claim for the construction payment of this case was extinguished, but the defendant paid the construction payment of this case in preference to the above payment.

No claim may be asserted against the plaintiff CCC which seized the claim.

E. Determination as to the defense of performance under an oral direct payment agreement

The Defendant was unable to pay money to the subcontractors from around December 2014, 2014 by “AA Construction.”

The construction has been delayed. AA Construction has been made oral to the defendant around December 15, 2014.

The author requested the direct payment of the subcontract price to be paid to him and accepted it.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) from December 8, 2014 to March 10, 2015, total amount of 62,141,800 to each subcontractor.

- 13-

Therefore, the claim for construction payment of this case is extinguished due to the payment of the above amount lawfully.

1.3.5

When concluding a construction contract and a subcontract together, the contractor, the original contractor, and the subcontractor;

The contract price shall be paid directly by the contractor to the subcontractor in the presence of the original contractor, and shall be paid to the original contractor.

(2) If the parties have agreed that the agreement is not payable, the agreement and the subcontract shall be

The contractor of the original contractor regardless of whether the construction has been actually implemented or completed;

The subcontractor directly transfers the contract price claim itself to the subcontractor and the subcontractor directly transfers the contract price claim to the subcontractor

If the original contractor has filed a claim for the payment and the original contractor does not have filed a claim for the construction cost, this is substantial.

If the original contractor transfers his claim for the work price to the subcontractor to the subcontractor, the debtor; and

It is reasonable to see that the contractor has consented to the assignment of claims as above.

If the document with the consent of the contractor is not made by the certificate with the fixed date, the contractor

The original contractor's above contract price claim with the assignment of claims such as the assignment of claims and the repayment of obligations based thereon.

No objection may be raised against the execution creditor (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da6311 Decided September 12, 2013).

In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is a health stand, and AA Construction is a monetary issue on December 15, 2014.

The Corporation was delayed because it did not pay money to the subcontractor, and AA Construction Corporation's gas pipeline

Installation works, installation works of drums, urban gas supply works, construction works related to supply of ready-mixeds, scrap coal;

The defendant does not have to perform waterproof construction, stone construction, aesthetic works, etc., and the defendant does not have to perform the AA construction and AA construction

The defendant agrees to pay directly the subcontract price to be paid by the defendant, and directly pays sewage.

At the time of the agreement between the defendant and AA Construction, the subcontractor has undertaken the construction of the body.

testimony of witness DD and the purpose of the entire pleading, etc.

The agreement between AA Construction and the defendant is based on the sewage of the construction cost claim itself against the defendant of AA Construction.

- 14 -

The subcontractor directly claims the amount to the Defendant by transferring the full amount to the Respondent and the AA Construction

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not demand the payment of construction price to the Defendant. In addition, the above agreement is acquired by transfer.

If the subcontractor is not specified, it is difficult to see that the subcontractor is the assignment of claims, and even if so, the assignment of claims.

Even if the agreement is not based on a document with a fixed date, the defendant's above oral agreement is not made.

No defense may be set up against the plaintiffs and intervenors, who are execution creditors, due to the repayment of their debts.

F. Determination on the counterclaims based on the claim for liquidated damages

The Defendant: “The time limit for completion of the instant construction is October 30, 2014; the Defendant on February 27, 2015.

A claim for the penalty for delay of 239,400,000 won for the 114th day from November 1, 2014 to February 23, 2015, shall be filed.

Since the defendant sent the content-certified mail, the defendant shall pay for delay damages of KRW 239,00,000 to A Construction.

(1) The Defendant shall pay KRW 239,000,000 to the damages for delay as a preparatory document on October 6, 2015.

D. Accordingly, an expression of intent to offset the claim for construction cost of this case against the claim for construction cost of this case.

The claim for the construction cost of this case was set-off and terminated lawfully."

The construction period of the instant construction work on August 29, 2014, 2014, 1.31 October 31, 2014

The fact that an amendment to the agreement is made to extend the period is as mentioned above, and the defendant made February 2015.

27. Transmitting a content-certified mail that claims the amount of a penalty for delay equivalent to that of the AA Construction;

The authority of the owner of a building for delay on January 28, 2015, which was the representative director of AA Construction, shall be the owner of a building for delay.

the date of completion on October 31, 2014 and the owner shall have the legal authority to exercise the rights.

(c)"No. 8" is recognized that the document has been prepared and delivered to the defendant (Evidence No. 8); however,

On March 3, 2015, the Defendant and AA Construction thereafter, KRW 2,420,00,000 for the construction cost of the instant construction.

to March 3, 2015, a written agreement to revise the construction period from March 1, 2014 to March 3, 2015 is amended.

As seen earlier, the facts are also identical to the general provisions applicable to the above modified agreement.

(2) If the defendant has approved the extension of the contract period, the penalty for delay shall be

AA Construction and AA Construction to the extent that there is a provision that the substantial representative of AA Construction may not be subject to any provision.

In addition, the construction period shall be extended as above and the claim for liquidated damages shall not be made under the agreement with the highest level of damages.

In light of the fact that the confirmation document was submitted, etc., the fact of the above recognition alone is delayed to the defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that there is a gold claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

G. Sub-committee

CCC by December 19, 2014, on which the attachment and collection order of CCC was issued, shall be substituted with CCC by December 19, 2014.

total sum u 3000 1,775,620,000 (= direct payment amount of 853,000,000 won)

+ 56,00,000 won in direct repayment through DD + 131,220,000 won in direct repayment by EE Construction + F

Seoul High Court Decision 235,400,000 won, and Plaintiff BB lecture seizure and collection order were served on 2015.

2. Until December 23, 200, the sum of the amounts of reimbursement recognized as effective for the Plaintiff BB lecture.

2,114,520,000 won (= direct repayment of KRW 853,00,000) + Amount of KRW 566,00,000 through DD

+ 131,220,000 won £« FF electrical direct performance ＋ 235,400,000 won ＋ Won

JBG industry ＋ Amounting to KRW 297,00,000 £« Amounting to KRW 31,900,000,000, and Intervenors

the notice of seizure was served on or before April 6, 2015, the repayment deemed effective for the Intervenor.

Amounting to KRW 2,124,520,00 in total (=amounting to KRW 863,00,000 in direct repayment) + Amount repaid through DD

566,000,000 + 131,220,000 direct performance money for EE construction + FF electrical performance money

235,400,000 + Amount of direct repayment by Plaintiff BB £« Amount of KRW 297,00,000 + Amount of direct repayment by the GG industry

31,900,000 won

Therefore, in relation to the plaintiff CCC, AA Construction is 644,380,000 won against the defendant (=this g)

The construction cost of the case 2,420,00,000 - 1,775,620,000) and the construction cost of the case - AA construction in relation to the plaintiff B B B B lectures

- 16 -

The Defendant at KRW 305,450,000 (i.e., the construction price of the instant case at KRW 2,420,000,000 - 2:

14,520,00 Won 295,480,000 for AA Construction in relation to the intervenor (i.e., the defendant)

The construction cost of the case 2,420,000,000 - KRW 2,124,520,000) has the claim for the construction cost of the case

Ro. The remaining claim for the construction cost exceeds the amount of each seizure claim of the plaintiffs and intervenors. Accordingly, the defendant

The defense is eventually without merit.

4. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

As to the claim for the construction price of this case, the defendant competition with several recommendations and collection orders, etc.

As such, although the claims of the plaintiffs and intervenors are alleged to the effect that they are unjustifiable, the claims of the plaintiffs and intervenors are alleged to the same claims.

, even if several collection orders are issued, there is no order of priority between them, and a collection order is issued.

creditors who collect claims upon acceptance of such claims shall be subject to concurrent seizure as well as to meet their own claims.

or demand for distribution, a kind of collection agency according to the authorization by the court of execution, shall be pressured.

Since collection is conducted on behalf of all creditors taking part in the chapter or distribution from the garnishee, such collection is made.

The ability to collect shall not be limited to the total amount of seized claims, and shall also be repaid to the legitimate collection authority as the third debtor.

this effect shall be limited to all creditors mentioned above, and any creditor who has seized the seized claim and any other

It is not necessary to repay the amount of other creditors' claims in proportion to the amount of other creditors' claims (Supreme Court Decision 2001.

3. The defendant is justified on the ground that other seizure concurrently competes with each other.

The claim of this case by the plaintiffs and intervenors who are collection creditors cannot be rejected. The defendant's above assertion is not the defendant.

Defendant

Park Han-gu

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 23, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

July 7, 2016

1. Presumed facts

(a) AA Construction Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "A Construction") and the Defendant’s construction contract;

1) On February 25, 2014, the construction of AAD with the Defendant on February 25, 2014, and the 1-3 living zone C4-2 Libers.

D New Construction Works (hereinafter referred to as "the construction of this case") shall be 2,310,000,000 construction cost and 1 March 2014.

Before August 31, 2014, the rate of penalty for delay was set as KRW 1/1,000 and received as a contract.

2) On August 29, 2014, the construction period of the instant construction works by October 31, 2014

The revised agreement was concluded on January 28, 2015, and the date of preparation was February 27, 2014.

On January 31, 2015, a contract to change the construction period by January 31, 2015 was re-established, and 2015.

3. 3. The construction cost of the instant construction project is KRW 2,420,00,000, and the construction period is from March 1, 2014;

On March 3, 2015, a revised agreement was concluded again to the effect that the amendment was made. The foregoing revised agreement was concluded.

"The Agreement on the Modification of this Agreement shall apply as it is to the general clauses and special agreements of the original contract."

A. The terms and conditions attached to the contract signed by A Construction and the Defendant on February 27, 2014 are different.

Article 16 (Extension of Work Period)

(1) Any cause or natural disaster attributable to Company A, force majeure situation, imbalance in the supply and demand of raw materials, etc.

The execution of the construction works shall be delayed due to reasons not attributable to B (A Construction), such as where it is substantially impracticable to perform the construction works.

B may request in writing A to extend the construction period.

(4) Where A has approved an extension of the contract period under paragraph (1), he/she shall pay a penalty for delay for the extension thereof.

shall not be subject to imposition.

include the same content as that of the note.

3) On March 3, 2015, AA Construction completed the instant construction and delivered the building to the Defendant.

B. The order of seizure and collection, etc. of the plaintiffs and intervenors

1) On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff BB river was the debtor A case as Daejeon District Court 2015 Taz2466, Daejeon District Court 2015

The third debtor shall be the defendant for the construction price claim of the Corporation in this case against the defendant of AA Construction

With regard to KRW 243,561,644 among them, a seizure and collection order was issued, and the above order was issued on February 23, 2015.

was served on the Defendant.

2) On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff CCC’s obligor A case as Daejeon District Court 2014TT 18264

The third debtor shall be the defendant for the construction price claim of the Corporation in this case against the defendant of AA Construction

Among them, 54,614,923 won was issued with a seizure and collection order, and the above order was issued on December 19, 2014.

was served on the Defendant.

3) On April 6, 2015, the Intervenor was the Defendant of AA Construction in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act.

of the construction cost claim of the Corporation against A.I.D., which constitutes a default of national taxes of A.A.

53,88,980 won and including increased additional charges and expenses for disposition on default to be added in the future, shall be deemed claims subject to seizure.

A notice of seizure was given to the Defendant to request the Defendant to pay it to the Intervenor at that time, and the above notice was given to the Defendant

service was made to the Corporation.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 1, 11, Gap's evidence, 1, 2, 3, Eul's evidence 1, 2, 9

- 5-

each entry (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleading;

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant 2,420,000,000 won for the construction of this case in AA Construction

the contract price of this case, and the plaintiffs are obligated to pay the contract price of this case to their respective claims.

as seen earlier, that only part of the claim was subject to the seizure and collection order. Accordingly, the Defendant:

Pursuant to the scope of the amount claimed, the plaintiff BB river amounting to KRW 243,561,644 and the service of the complaint

From June 4, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the day immediately following the day, the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the Gu;

Provisions concerning statutory interest rates under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Act No. 1350, Sep. 25, 201

Decree No. 2653, 20% per annum prescribed by the old Regulation (amended by Ordinance No. 26553, hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation"); from the following day

The delayed damage calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the date of full payment.

and after October 1, 2015, in excess of 15% per annum, which is sought by the plaintiff BB lecture.

The damages for delay in the percentage of 54,614,923 shall be without merit, and a complaint filed against the plaintiff CCC

From July 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the date following the date of service, 20% per annum prescribed by the previous provisions, and the following:

The rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay [the next day after the issuance of the collection order to the defendant]

The third debtor claims damages for delay, but the third debtor is equivalent to the amount of the claim seized against the execution creditor.

for the delayed liability, not from the time when the execution court received a delivery of the collection order from the execution court

Since it is from the date following the issuance of a collection order to the execution creditor’s claim for the collection money (Supreme Court)

Part of a claim for damages for delay by the date of delivery of the complaint, October 25, 2012, and this part of a claim for damages for delay by the date of delivery of the complaint, shall be subject to this Opinion.

there is no delay in the rate exceeding 15% per annum since October 1, 2015 sought by the Plaintiff CCC.

(1) The portion of the gold shall not be justified.

- - Other

In addition, according to Article 41 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the intervenor collects the amount of national taxes in arrears.

When a right is attached, a creditor who is a delinquent taxpayer shall be subrogated to the extent of the delinquent amount, and the defendant shall be the defendant.

53,88,980 won for intervenors and the next day after the date of service of the written application for intervention in co-litigation against them.

9. Payment of 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date of full payment to the date of full payment;

have an obligation to take place.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Summary of defendant's defense

“The Defendant, directly, through AA Construction, directly by the Defendant of KRW 863,00,00,000, and DD

The Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act") has been paid 56,00,000 won in writing.

Under the Act on Transactions and Transactions, a direct payment agreement shall be made to the subcontractors of the project in this case.

695,520,00 won in total, and pursuant to the oral direct payment agreement between the defendant and AA Construction, the subcontractor

Since the total amount of 62,141,800 won has been paid directly to each party, the interest equivalent to the above amount has been paid.

A. A. A.D. arising in connection with the Project of this case

The damages for delay claimed KRW 239,00,000,000, which was set off against the claim for construction payment of this case as an automatic claim

Ro. The construction cost of this case was all extinguished.

B. Determination as to the defendant's direct defense of payment

The third debtor shall be entitled to all defenses under substantive law that may be asserted against the debtor.

such order of seizure may be served prior to the service of the defendant. Accordingly, the payment shall be made to AA Construction, the debtor, before the service of the seizure

the plaintiffs and intervenors may set up a defense against the plaintiffs and intervenors, if the collection claim has been extinguished by them.

C. The Defendant repaid the construction cost of KRW 863 billion in total as follows (No. B)

3 Evidence 1 to 9 and Witness DNA testimony.

On the other hand, the effect of the prohibition of seizure is not absolute, but absolute, the debtor's act of disposal or the third bonds.

Any execution creditor or demand for distribution who has participated in the execution procedures prior to disposal or performance by performance;

The effect of seizure is only the relative effect of the attachment, because it does not oppose the person.

(1) If the debtor has been disposed of or has been discharged by the third debtor before the occurrence of such

Any disposition or performance made by the obligee, even if there is any circumstance which makes it impossible for the obligee to oppose the obligee.

It is a valid disposition or repayment for the creditor who received the attachment order after the date of the attachment order.

The seizure of each claim against which the CCC received, 2001Da10748 delivered on May 30, 2003, 2001Da10748 delivered on May 30, 2003

A collection order is issued on February 23, 2015 and December 19, 2014; and the notice of attachment of the intervenor around April 6, 2015.

The facts delivered to the Defendant are as seen earlier, and therefore the repayment of No. 9 10 million won is thereafter made.

The amount equivalent to the above amount in respect of the relationship between the intervenor and the intervenor in force upon the performance of the obligation of the intervenor which was made effective.

Although the claim for the construction price was extinguished, the defendant seized the above by the repayment of No. 9

No defense may be set up against it.

C. Determination as to the defense of performance through DD

The defendant, through DD, KRW 566 million in total of the construction costs as follows in AA Construction:

The reimbursement was made [Evidence Nos. 20 to 22, evidence Nos. 24 to 27 (including paper numbers), witness testimony of DD].

However, on February 23, 2015, Plaintiff BB river, and each claim attachment and collection order received by CCC are issued.

On December 19, 2014, the Intervenor’s attachment notice was served on and around April 6, 2015 to the Defendant as seen earlier.

As seen earlier, the KRW 10 million of the repayment of No. 13 pursuant to the legal doctrine as seen earlier was subsequently attached.

such amount as would be effective in respect of the Intervenor BB(s) and as would be related to the Intervenor(s).

The claim for the construction price of the party has expired, but the defendant has made a repayment by No. 13 and seized earlier.

Reasons

shall not be effective.

5. Conclusion

The intervenor's claim is justified, and the plaintiffs' claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, but the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant is ordered to be fully borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 90 and Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act.

심급 사건

대전지방법원 2016.07.07.선고 2016가합15

-대전고등법원 2017.04.05.선고 2016나13770

-대법원 2017.06.29.선고 2017다224173

참조조문