1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the statement No. 4, No. 5, and No. 19. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) Whether the content of the written consent to the payment of the subcontract price in this case can be seen as a direct payment agreement pursuant to Article 14(1)2 of the Subcontract Act. (B) In light of the legislative intent of Article 14 of the Subcontract Act to substantially preserve the subcontractor’s claim for subcontract price, the above provision cannot be seen as a provision prohibiting the principal contractor and the ordering person from jointly and severally bearing the liability for payment of the subcontract price, and the ordering person from guaranteeing the principal contractor’s obligation for the payment of the subcontract price in this part is different from the provision of the Subcontract Act. Thus, the legal nature of the agreement is whether it is a direct payment agreement under the Subcontract Act or directly similar to the contractor’s right to claim payment in the Subcontract Act, but whether it constitutes a juristic act or a person’s obligation to assume the obligation.

The nature of the assumption of the obligation.