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

Of the instant lawsuits, 343,062,840 won and damages for delay.

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Defendant added KRW 561,142,840 in total to the Defendant’s liability owed on behalf of the Plaintiff, KRW 50,000 in total, and KRW 125,00 in total,00 in the amount of indemnity due to the subrogation of the loan, and KRW 50,000 in the amount of indemnity due to the Plaintiff’s payment on behalf of the Plaintiff, and KRW 125,00 in the amount of the construction payment in question,

Parts 15, 4 to 24 are as follows:

C. The attachment of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, etc., prohibits all acts of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc., to the creditor and debtor against whom the seized claims are seized, and collects on behalf of the defaulted taxpayer. Thus, the garnishee cannot repay the seized claims to the defaulted taxpayer, and only can it be done to the collecting authority only.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da3686, May 14, 199). Therefore, in the case of seizure due to national tax in arrears, the delinquent taxpayer loses the standing to institute a performance suit against the claims subject to seizure.

In addition, Article 81(3) of the National Health Insurance Act, Article 11 of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act, Article 95(4) of the National Pension Act, and Article 28(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance provides that the National Health Insurance Corporation may collect the insurance premiums, etc. in accordance with the disposition on default of national taxes. Thus, even in case of seizure due to delinquency in payment of insurance premiums, the creditor of the seized claim shall lose the standing to file

According to the contents of the evidence Nos. 5-3 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the vice chief of the tax office is the plaintiff around May 4, 2012.