1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall revise "foreign company" to "Defendant company"; and (b) the "date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case" in the fourth 13th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance to "date following the delivery of the original copy of each payment order of this case"; and (c) the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the second 2 below to the judgment on the assertion and new argument that the defendants repeated in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, this shall

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) confirmed on June 22, 2016, that the Defendant Company was included in the amount of the subcontract construction cost that the Defendant Company and the Nonparty Company entered into on the “Agreement on Direct Payment of the Price for Recons” (hereinafter “Agreement on Direct Payment”) that was brought by the Plaintiff on June 22, 2016. The Defendant Company demanded the Non-Party Company’s confirmation letter after adding the content, but rejected it. As such, the Non-Party Company did not enter into a direct payment agreement. Even if the direct payment agreement was concluded by the instant Non-Payment Agreement, the construction of the “E building” (hereinafter “the instant construction”).

In relation to the above, the Defendant Company bears the obligation to pay the subcontract price directly to the Plaintiff, who is the subcontractor, within the scope of the construction cost to be borne by the subcontractor to the non-party company. By June 22, 2016, the date on which the written consent of the non-party company was drawn up, that is, the subcontractor’s sewage supplier of the non-party company, the subcontractor, namely, the subcontractor’s sewage supplier F, wooder G, and ready-mixed Supplier H, and the non-party company’s creditor I’s claim attachment and collection order were not remaining. Thus, the Defendant Company did not have the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff under the written consent of the non-party company.