1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 99,124,012 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from October 4, 2013 to December 10, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

The part of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

With respect to the plaintiff's claim seeking payment of the balance of 111,157,194 won for the reasons of cancellation of the provisional attachment order against the claim of the parties for the existence of the right to claim direct payment of subcontract consideration against the defendant of the daily construction, the defendant asserts that there is no further amount of construction consideration since the wage creditors of the daily construction are directly paying the balance to the debtor of the daily construction and the defendant as the third debtor according to the collection order and the seizure of the claim and collection order received by the defendant as the third debtor.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 5-1 to No. 4, the wage creditors of the daily construction shall construct the daily construction with sewage from the plaintiff, and with the plaintiff's consent, "each of the above" is "the seizure and collection order of this case," and each decision is specified only on the case number alone.

The facts can be recognized. Accordingly, it should be examined whether the monthly construction actually has the right to claim the payment of the subcontract price against the Defendant (the Defendant has asserted that the payment to the wage creditors does not go against the provisional attachment order of the daily construction. However, as seen earlier, since the provisional attachment order had already been terminated on September 2013, it is unnecessary to further examine whether the payment to the wage creditors is in conflict with the validity of the provisional attachment order.

In order to recognize the right to demand a direct payment of subcontract price for the Defendant of the daily construction, the subcontract price for the Plaintiff, who is the primary contractor and the subcontractor, is the primary contractor.