1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 16, 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract with C on August 16, 2016, setting the construction cost of KRW 115 million for the construction of a new house and warehouse facilities on the D ground at Kim Jong-si, the date of commencement, August 17, 2016, and November 30, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant prime contract”). B.

On August 17, 2016, C concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the said detached house and warehouse facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the Plaintiff by determining the construction cost of KRW 27 million as the commencement date, August 18, 2016, and September 10, 2016 as the completion date of the completion plan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Defendant claims against the Plaintiff for the payment of the unpaid construction cost of KRW 12,314,50 and the delayed payment damages for the following reasons.

1) While performing the instant construction project, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant and C to pay directly the Plaintiff the subcontract price that the Plaintiff performed at the site of the instant construction project on September 2016, 2016, and the Defendant and C consented to the Plaintiff’s above request. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the subcontract price unpaid by C in accordance with the above direct payment agreement. Even if the direct payment agreement is not acknowledged, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the subcontract price unpaid by C pursuant to Article 35(2)3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. In addition, the Defendant is obligated to directly pay the Plaintiff the contract price unpaid by C in accordance with Article 35(2)3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Furthermore, upon the Defendant’s request for additional

B. The defendant paid all the construction cost under the original contract of this case to the defendant C, and there was no direct payment agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and there was no fact that the defendant directly requested the plaintiff to perform the additional construction work.