The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows.

The Plaintiff does not seek the return of advance payment paid pursuant to the instant contract, but instead sought the return of the excess amount paid by mistake, etc., although there is no contractual obligation to pay.

The payment for the completed portion paid above is subject to return of unjust enrichment regardless of whether the contract of this case was rescinded or terminated, and is not included in the scope of restitution following the rescission or termination of the contract of this case.

Therefore, the claim for return of the portion paid in excess by the Plaintiff does not constitute the claim for reimbursement for the value of the consideration that the debtor receives when the debtor and the other party cancel or terminate the bilateral contract that has not yet been completed at the time the rehabilitation procedures commence at the option of the custodian.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on priority claim under Article 121(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Article 14(4) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”) provides that “When the ordering person directly pays the subcontract price to the relevant subcontractor pursuant to paragraph (1), the subcontract price that the ordering person has already paid to the principal contractor shall be deducted.” Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act”) provides that “the ordering person shall be liable to pay the subcontract price within the scope of the obligation to pay the principal contractor.”

In light of this, the Subcontract Act does not impose a new burden on the client over the contract price obligations.