1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the determination of the Defendant’s argument at the trial as set forth in the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. In light of the facts of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 4, 18 of the first instance, " alone, the fact of the above recognition", "The plaintiff corporation Gap applied for a payment order against G to the Changwon District Court for the payment of the pertinent ready-mixed amount and received the judgment in favor of G as the above court No. 2016No. 207666 of the above court. The ground for the claim is that G alleged as a joint and several surety (the purport of the entire argument). The fact that the plaintiffs received part of the price of ready-mixed amount from the ordering owner who is not the defendant is in accordance with the direct payment agreement of this case and constitutes a creditor's exercise of right as a natural right, and there is no evidence to prove that the relation of the name lending was explained to the plaintiffs at the time of the conclusion of the supply contract of the instant ready-mixed amount."

3. The defendant asserts that since the defendant's sales amount of the business year immediately preceding the contract of this case and the appraised value of the execution capacity are 2 billion or 2.5 billion won, the defendant is a business operator who is not a small and medium business operator pursuant to Article 2 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act, and the defendant's obligation to the plaintiffs was extinguished due to the direct payment agreement of this case under

In order to be subject to Article 14 of the Subcontract Act, the defendant must fall under the principal contractor as provided by Article 2(2) of the Subcontract Act. In the case of construction like this case, a small and medium enterprise owner whose execution capacity value is less than three billion won is less than three billion won, and Article 2(2)2 of the Subcontract Act and Article 2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act are not the principal contractor.