The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The trade name of the E Co., Ltd. was changed to Defendant C through F Co., Ltd.; “The trade name of the E Co., Ltd. was changed to that of G, F Co., Ltd., C and Defendant B in succession; and Defendant C, among the reasons in the first instance judgment, was changed to that of Defendant B; and

1. The judgment as to the cause of the claim is based on the following facts: (a) there is no dispute over the last termination of the basic facts; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5; and (c) Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers); and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (d) the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 2. According to the above facts of recognition: (a) Defendant B is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 1, 2019 to the date of full payment, which the plaintiff seeks.

In addition, the following judgments are added to the defendants' arguments, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Additional Parts] The Defendants asserted that Defendant B’s obligation to pay to the Plaintiff was extinguished within the scope of KRW 121,598,622 on the written consent of direct payment pursuant to Article 35(2) and (3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

However, according to each of the above provisions, if the ordering person directly pays the subcontract price to the subcontractor, the contractor’s obligation to pay the subcontractor the subcontract price is extinguished within the scope of the contractor’s payment. The Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining KRW 21,598,621 from H while the Plaintiff was a person who received KRW 100,000,000 from H. and sought payment of the remainder of KRW 21,598,621.