1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s comprehensive construction company in the first instance court (“Defendant”) was used as “joint Defendant in the first instance court”; and (b) the Defendant’s assertion is identical to the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment identical with paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiffs’ claim for construction payment under the direct payment agreement occurred only after the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the construction payment on the Gyeongnam-do, and the Plaintiffs filed a claim for construction payment on February 2, 2016, which was subsequent to the delivery of the provisional attachment order to the Gyeongnam-do, and thus, cannot be asserted against the Defendant, who is the right holder of the provisional attachment. 2) There is no evidence to deem that the technical examination of the Gyeongnam-do and the settlement of advance payment were divided according to the individual construction parts of the Plaintiffs, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that the construction and

B. 1) Determination is based on the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”) regarding the timing of the occurrence of the right to demand direct payment.

Article 14(1)2 of the Act provides that “When an agreement is reached between the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, the ordering person shall directly pay the subcontract price corresponding to the part on which the subcontractor performed construction or service.” Thus, the right to claim the subcontract price against the ordering person of the immediately subcontractor solely on the instant direct payment agreement.

Even if the direct payment of the subcontract price is agreed between the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor, the Plaintiff may claim the subcontract price only when the subcontractor requests a direct payment of the subcontract price to the ordering person, and the scope of the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the prime contractor.