A joint contractor shall not seize the claim of the joint contractor by the partnership under the Civil Act.

A joint contractor shall not seize the claim of the partnership, which is a property of a third party, because one of the members of the joint contractor under the Civil Act has defaulted.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The attachment disposition issued by the Defendant on June 4, 2008 against the amount equivalent to KRW 258,069,010, out of the construction cost claims that the BB industry development had againstCC.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are incidental to the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, AA Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A Construction”) and BB Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B Industry Development”) were awarded a contract for KRW 6,839,80,000 for each of the above construction works (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction works”) from the CC to the new one on August 30, 2007.

B. On June 4, 2008, the Defendant issued a seizure (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the amount equivalent to KRW 258,069,010 out of the total construction cost claim 293,618,800 against the instant construction project that the development of BB industry had againstCC (hereinafter referred to as “the instant claim”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The joint supply and demand of the Plaintiff, AA construction, and B B industrial development constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act, and thus, the claim of this case againstCC due to the execution of each of the construction works of this case belongs to the quasi-joint supply and demand of the Plaintiff, AA construction, and B B industrial development. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to seize the claim of this case, which is a partnership property, for reasons of delinquency in the corporate tax, etc. of BB industrial development, which is only one of the union members, is against the property owned by a third party, not a delinquent taxpayer.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The contract agreement of each of the instant construction works entered into between the Plaintiff and AA Construction and BB Industrial Development and the Plaintiff and AAAA Construction and BB Industry Development entered into between the Plaintiff and AB and the contracting party, and there is no content that the Plaintiff and AB Industrial Development share each of the instant construction works.

(2) The content of the electronic contract commitments attached to the contract of each of the instant construction works, which was entered into between the Plaintiff and AA Construction and BB Industry Development at the time ofCC, is as follows.

1. Confirmation of the contents of contract;

All members of the joint supply and demand contractors, including the representatives of the joint supply and demand contractors, have confirmed all the terms and conditions of the contract prior to the conclusion.

2. Joint contract;

The terms of the joint supply and demand agreement shall substitute the following and shall be deemed to apply the terms of the joint supply and demand agreement in force as of the date of conclusion of the agreement, as they are in force.

(1) The name of the joint contractor: the plaintiff

(2) Terms of a joint contract

Joint Implementation: Plaintiff 51.00% of the investment rate, AA Construction 45.00%, BB Industrial Development 4%

(3) With respect to the payment of the price of each of the instant construction works, the payment of the price of each of the instant construction works was divided into the account of the Plaintiff and AA Construction and BB Industrial Development according to the share sharing.

(4) In relation to each construction project of this case, the Plaintiff first paid the construction cost, and each month paid the construction cost to AA Construction and BB industrial development in proportion to the share ratio. Since the development of BB from December 9, 2007, the Plaintiff did not pay the share ratio of construction cost, and the Plaintiff claimed the share ratio of KRW 584,516,661 in total to the development of YB industry around May 9, 2008.

(5) Article 11(2) of the Guidelines for the Management of Joint Contract (established Accounting Rules 2200.0-13-13, December 29, 2006) provides that a contracting officer shall pay the advance payment to the representative of the joint supply and demand organization in the case of a joint contract with the method of joint performance, but the advance payment shall be paid to each member of the joint supply and demand organization even in the case of a joint performance. Meanwhile, Article 5(1) of the Guidelines for the Management of Joint Contract provides that a member of the joint supply and demand organization shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of contractual obligations to the ordering entity. Article 10 provides that a member of the joint supply and demand organization shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of contractual obligations to the ordering entity if any profit or loss is incurred after performing the contract. Article 12 provides that a member of the joint supply and demand agreement shall not transfer his rights and duties to a third party under this Agreement, and Article 12 provides that the joint supply and demand entity shall not be jointly and severally liable until the date of dissolution of the contract in question.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

Since the claims of a cooperative under the Civil Act accrue to all its members jointly and severally, it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution against a cooperative's claims with claims against one of its members as an executory obligor. Thus, a seizure disposition against a third party's property, which is not a taxpayer, cannot be legally realized. Thus, a disposition against a third party, which is not a taxpayer, shall be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du8356, Oct. 9, 2001).

In this case, according to the contents of the contract for construction works and the warranty of electronic contract concluded between the above joint supply and demand company and the above joint supply and demand company, the above joint supply and demand company is a joint supply and demand company with the method of joint performance. In full view of various circumstances such as the methods of performing contractual obligations, profit and loss distribution, transfer of rights and obligations, withdrawal from the joint supply and demand company and method of defect repair liability as stipulated in the standard contract for joint supply and demand, three companies such as the plaintiff et al. agree to jointly implement each of the above joint supply and demand by investing money or other property or labor in the standard contract for joint supply and demand, which are based on the above joint supply and demand agreement, and the joint supply and demand company is established under the Civil Act. Since the agreement for the joint supply and demand company's share of construction costs is not settled, the joint supply and demand company continues to exist, and even if it is paid to the account of the members of the joint supply and demand company of this case, this is merely because it is not a different nature of the above joint supply and demand company.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.