1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on the facts of recognition and the relevant statutes are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. At the time of the conclusion of the other settlement agreement of this case, the defendant and Art agreed that the defendant shall pay the retained earnings of this case directly to the creditors of Eart's creditors or sewage suppliers of Eart at the time of the conclusion of the other settlement agreement of this case, and that Eart shall not raise any civil or criminal objection to the defendant in connection with the construction project of this case in the future. The plaintiff is merely the transfer of the remaining part of the claim for the construction price against the defendant of Eart, and the ordering person bears the obligation to pay the subcontract price directly only to the principal contractor within the scope of the obligation to pay the contract price. The defendant can oppose the plaintiff on the grounds that Eart can oppose Eart including the above written claim of lawsuit. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is contrary to the above written claim of this case.

B. In light of the determination, upon receipt of a request for direct payment under Article 14(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”), the principal contractor’s claim for the construction work against the ordering person corresponding thereto is transferred to the subcontractor while maintaining the identity, and the ordering person may oppose the subcontractor before the said request for direct payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da19574, Jun. 10, 201). However, solely on the sole basis of the circumstance cited by the Defendant, the effect of the above secondary agreement between the Defendant and Art is even to the Plaintiff who exercises the right to direct payment under the Subcontract Act beyond the effect that the Defendant did not make a request with respect to the instant construction work and other settlement agreement.