The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claim filed by this court are all dismissed.

after the filing of an appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the grounds for a claim added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Claim for subcontract consideration under Article 14(1)3 of the Subcontract Act was not paid to the Plaintiff even if the Defendant received progress payment from the Defendant on four occasions from February 13, 2018 to July 5, 2018. As the Plaintiff requested a direct payment of the subcontract consideration to the Defendant on August 9, 2018, the Defendant is obligated to pay the subcontract consideration to the Plaintiff under the foregoing provision. (2) The claim for subcontract consideration under Article 14(1)1 of the Subcontract Act was filed by the Jeonju District Court 2018hap19 on November 19, 2018, and the rehabilitation procedure is in progress as of the date of closing the argument of the instant case after receiving a decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure on January 15, 2019.

On May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the installation and dismantling of the safety facilities supplied with sewage on June 21, 2018, and C prepared a payment note on June 21, 2018.

In such a case, it should be deemed that the principal contractor becomes unable to pay the subcontract price due to the suspension of payment by the principal contractor, bankruptcy, or any other similar cause, and accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded a direct payment of the subcontract price to the Defendant on August 9, 2018.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the subcontract price to the plaintiff pursuant to the above provision.

B. Determination 1) In order to determine whether the Plaintiff requested a direct payment to the Defendant, both Article 14(1)1 and 3 of the Subcontract Act regarding whether the Plaintiff requested a direct payment, the Plaintiff ought to request the Defendant, who is the ordering person, to pay the subcontract price on the grounds provided in each of the subparagraphs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1588