1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance asserts that “13,914,960,000 won” in Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance is “14,91,80,000 won” (see the Plaintiffs’ preparatory documents in August 26, 2019).

Of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "this court" in Part 8 shall be deemed to be "the court of first instance".

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the phrase “in light of the point of view, etc.” of the first instance judgment, the phrase “in the light of the point of view, etc.” is as follows: “The ordering person directly pays the subcontract price to the subcontractor pursuant to Article 14 of the Subcontract Act; and even at the end of the agreement, the phrase “in the light of the fact that the contractor’s obligation to the contractor and the contractor’s obligation to the subcontractor is extinguished pursuant to Article 14 of the Subcontract Act” is determined.

Of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, the details of the first-class 2 to 15 are as follows.

"However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as stated above, that is, the Subcontract Act applies to cases where a contractor (subcontract) falls under a subcontractor as stipulated in Article 2 (2) of the Subcontract Act, and a subcontractor falls under a subcontractor as stipulated in Article 2 (3) of the Subcontract Act. However, as seen earlier, the agreement in each of the above cases is that the Defendant, the primary contractor, has agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the Plaintiffs, the subcontractor, as stipulated in Article 14 of the Subcontract Act, to the extent that the construction work is actually executed or completed, and as such, the requirements and effects of the direct claim, such as the application of