1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 373,982,950 as well as to the plaintiff on April 2017.

1. The grounds for this part of the facts acknowledged by the court are the same as the reasoning 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.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) In addition to the above subcontract, the Plaintiff completed the subcontract in addition to ① 5,00,000,000 of the construction cost for the stairs brickd construction around July 7, 2015, ② KRW 17,400,000 of the construction cost for the protruding part of the projection part around August 2015, ③ even though the Plaintiff completed the subcontract in addition to the above subconstruction, he completed the subcontract in addition to KRW 59,297,00,00 of the construction cost for the protruding part of the protruding part, which was located in the Obain part, (i) around December 23, 2015, each additional subcontract was paid for KRW 59,297,00 of the construction cost. As such, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant, the ordering person, to pay directly the subcontract price on more than two occasions.

() Pursuant to Article 14(1)3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or Article 35(2)3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Defendant, who is the ordering person, shall directly pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff. In addition, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the direct payment of the subcontract price. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction price including the said additional construction

Any person shall pay any and any damages for delay.

B. Defendant Song Construction paid most of the subcontracted construction costs to the Plaintiff, and paid the unpaid construction costs of KRW 24,368,478. The Defendant paid the Busan Construction to the Plaintiff in excess of the construction cost under the original contract.

In addition, the Plaintiff only sought cooperation from the Defendant for the payment of the construction cost under the instant prime contract for sub-construction, and did not request the Plaintiff to pay the subcontract price directly to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the construction cost under the Subcontract Act or the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

(b).