The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages or restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground that there is no ground to deem that the Defendant, the ordering person, was liable to notify the Plaintiff, the contractor, of the seizure of the claim for construction cost.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the Civil Act.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court, prior to the remanding of the judgment of the lower court and the judgment of remanding the case, found that: (a) the Defendant concluded the instant contract for construction work with C; (b) concluded the instant subcontract with C; and (c) agreed between the Plaintiff Defendant C and the Defendant C to pay directly the construction cost under the instant subcontract (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”); (d) the Defendant’s notice of seizure, etc. was served eight times from September 5, 201 to eight times on the instant claim for the construction cost against C; and (e) the Defendant terminated the instant contract on the grounds of delay in payment by C on December 12, 2011; and (b) determined that, pursuant to the instant direct payment agreement, the Plaintiff’s total sum of the amount of claims, such as one’s own subcontract price and other creditors’ seizure against C, exceeds the claim amount against the Defendant, prior to the seizure, etc. based on the arrival of notification, etc.

Accordingly, the plaintiff was able to claim a direct payment of the subcontract price that occurred before the notification of seizure, etc. reaches the defendant as of October 26, 201.

B. The judgment of remand shall be the subcontract.