All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the scope of the supply price of ready-mixeds between the plaintiff and the defendant

A. Where a claim attachment and assignment order against a monetary claim has been issued, the third obligor may set up against the execution creditor on the grounds of which the claim may be set up against the execution creditor before the attachment of the claim. Where the orderee and the contractor agree to pay directly the price of the goods necessary for the work to the client within the scope of the contract price to be paid to the contractor, the orderer may refuse to pay the contract price to the contractor as long as the goods have been supplied even before the direct payment of the price is made. If such grounds arise prior to the seizure of the contract price claim against the orderer, the orderer may also set up against the execution creditor.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu2049 Decided April 27, 1990 and Supreme Court Decision 201Da109821 Decided March 29, 2012, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu204, Apr. 27, 199

The lower court, based on its employed evidence, concluded on June 29, 201, that “the Defendant shall directly pay to the Plaintiff the subcontract price corresponding to the portion executed by the Plaintiff in the comprehensive construction project and the subcontract between the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”) regarding the instant construction project between the Defendant, the contractor, the contractor, and the Plaintiff, the contractor, as the supplier of ready-Name Integrated Construction (hereinafter “unregistered Comprehensive Construction”), in relation to the instant construction project on June 29, 201 (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”); (ii) However, in relation to the claim for the construction price against the Defendant of the Unregistered Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., the creditor of the Unregistered Comprehensive Construction (hereinafter “Afforestation Construction”), upon receipt of an order for the seizure and assignment of the claim against the Defendant on September 21, 201, and confirmed on October 5, 201, the seizure and assignment order of the claim was served on the Defendant on September 21, 2011; and (iii) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff at the construction site.