1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) deleted the “Defendant’s custodian” in paragraph (1) of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) instead of using the name “Defendant” in relation to co-defendants of the court of first instance other than the Defendant as “Co-defendants of the court of first instance”; and (c) cited it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure for the construction of the Dongbu Construction could not be paid KRW 75,061,250 for the subcontract price from the construction of the Dongbu Construction. Since the Plaintiff requested the direct payment of the unpaid subcontract price at the time of Suwon, the person ordering the construction of the instant construction, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the said unpaid subcontract price to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”) and Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

B. The scope of the obligation of the ordering person under Article 14 of the Defendant’s Claim for the Direct Payment of the Subcontract Act is the amount calculated by deducting the amount of the part of the subcontracted work from the subcontract price that the ordering person has already paid to the principal contractor from the subcontract price of the relevant subcontractor, within the scope of the construction cost that the ordering person has not paid to the principal contractor.

Therefore, if the subcontractor has fully paid the subcontract price for the relevant type of work subcontracted to the principal contractor, even if the subcontractor has failed to receive the subcontract price from the principal contractor, a direct payment cannot be claimed against the ordering person.

The contract amount of the portion of electrical facility construction in the instant construction contract concluded between Suwon-si and Dong Construction, which is the ordering person, was KRW 4,819,239,669, and Suwon-si paid the said amount in full prior to the Plaintiff’s request for direct payment, which is the subcontractor of the said construction work.