Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the "judgment on the counterclaim claim" in the fifth and sixth part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "judgment on the counterclaim claim," and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "2. Additional Judgment" to the argument and additional preliminary counterclaim claim emphasized by the defendant in this court, so it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the primary claim, 1) the Defendant’s assertion, F, and the Defendant’s direct payment agreement was reached, and F was virtually closed, and thus, the application procedure for the application for the payment through F was impossible. Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s statement in the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff shall pay 120,4320,000 won to the Defendant. Accordingly, according to the agreement on the direct payment of the subcontract price, the agreement on the direct payment of the subcontract price stated KRW 345,00,000,000 for the ordering person separately from the subcontract price amount of KRW 345,000,000,000,000 for the subcontractor’s actual execution within the scope of the contract amount payable to the contractor. The method and procedure for the direct payment of the subcontract price stated that “the contractor may request the subcontractor separately from the details of the subcontract price that was executed at the time of completion inspection and completion inspection,” and that it should be acknowledged that the subcontractor is the subcontractor’s account.