공사대금
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasons for this Court regarding this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition and dismissal of some parts as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In this Court, the lower court added the judgment as to the new argument by the Defendants as set forth below 2.
In the last 4th of the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff added “The Plaintiff” from the Republic of Korea (in addition to the entries of No. 10 and the results of the fact-finding on the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs of the first instance court, KRW 140,00,000 may be recognized that the Republic of Korea paid the Plaintiff directly in accordance with the instant direct payment agreement, and the entries of No. 11-1, No. 12-1, and No. 14-1 of the evidence No. 11-1, No. 12-1, and No. 14-1 of the evidence No. 14, which are not the Republic of Korea, are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant Dong Construction has paid the said recognition, and
The term "no reason exists" in the 7th judgment of the first instance court in the 7th judgment.
Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 15 and evidence No. 16-1 through No. 3, the Plaintiff claimed a direct payment of the subcontract price under the instant subcontract in the Republic of Korea around November 2017, and the Republic of Korea demanded the Plaintiff to pay the price through legitimate administrative procedures, and the Defendants sent a public notice demanding the payment of the price to the Plaintiff in accordance with the procedure for the direct payment of the subcontract price. However, even if it is recognized that the Defendants sent the public notice demanding the payment of the price for delay in accordance with the procedure for the direct payment of the subcontract price, it is merely an agreement to the effect that Korea can deposit the contract price directly into the Plaintiff’s account at the
Nor can it be interpreted that the instant direct payment agreement is not an agreement granting the Plaintiff’s right to claim a direct payment to the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea is insufficient for lack of administrative procedures.