2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on October 2013, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with D with respect to the construction work of officetels (total 10 stories) located in Port C, and accordingly, D decided to carry out a wood-water work, steel-line, concrete straw, concrete straw (non-thring) work.

The above D had ordered the re-subcontract to E and the Plaintiff, and E and the Plaintiff decided to perform the type framework work for each two households (4 households per floor).

From October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff started performing the instant construction work, and was in charge of creating a mold as a mold tree.

E has suspended construction work for up to four floors among the 10th floor of officetels.

D requested the plaintiff to leave the remaining parts to the last day, and the plaintiff consented in the form where the defendant field manager F is located.

As construction cost, the Plaintiff received KRW 195,000 per square year, and the remainder of the construction work was completed on March 20, 2014.

At the time, the representative G of the defendant promised that he would make a direct payment of the construction price to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant paid part of the construction price to the account in the name of the plaintiff on December 21, 2013, and deposited KRW 200,000,000 on January 29, 2014.

After that, the representative G promised that the remainder of the construction cost remaining in the Plaintiff and H will be directly treated to the Plaintiff. Since Article 14(1)2 and the proviso of Article 2(10) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”) agreed that the Plaintiff, D, and the Defendant would pay the construction cost directly to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost directly to the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, according to Article 14(1)3 and the proviso of Article 2(10) of the Subcontract Act, the Plaintiff was unable to receive the construction cost from D more than twice, and it was directly paid to the Defendant who is the principal contractor in the said sub-subcontract relationship.