All appeals by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

purport.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the instant telecommunications construction cost was transferred to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was actually in charge of the payment of the said price by the Armed Forces Finance Management Body. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the content of the written consent for direct payment on March 19, 2014 should be paid directly to the Defendant.

According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 13, 14, and 22, Ulsan Construction, etc., the National Armed Forces Finance Management Group consented to the direct payment of the instant telecommunications construction cost to the Plaintiff by sending a statement of direct payment to the National Armed Forces Finance Management Board around December 2013 and around March 2014. The Plaintiff also demanded that the National Armed Forces Finance Management Board pay the price to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2013, February 2014, and March 3, 2014. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 1,402,306,470 from the National Defense Facilities Headquarters on December 30, 2013, and KRW 1,402,06,470 from the National Defense Facilities Headquarters, KRW 1,098,301,000 from April 22, 2014 *74-165*69 each of the joint accounts of the Plaintiff and T Construction (National Bank).

However, it is difficult to confirm that the content of the written consent on March 19, 2014, which was the direct payment obligation of the subcontract consideration to the defendant, was set forth by the plaintiff.

Rather, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the aforementioned facts, Gap evidence No. 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., preparing a written consent of direct payment from the date of preparation of the above written consent of direct payment, which was no later than two months before January 13, 2014, and the Ulsan Construction agreed to pay C the contract amount directly to the defendant as the subcontract price to be paid to C. Thus, it is natural to view that the written consent of direct payment from March 19, 2014 was to set forth the same content, i.e., the defendant of Ulsan Construction, with the consent of the plaintiff who was an official party in the construction contract instead of C, and the appellate judgment of the lawsuit of this case as to the claim for the construction payment of this case is the judgment of the appellate court.