1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that they directly claim payment of subcontract consideration under Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or directly claim payment of subcontract consideration under Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act as the cause of the instant claim against the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor withdrawn the direct claim for payment of subcontract consideration under Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act.

(See, d. 4, 2018, d. 2, 2018.

Therefore, the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to the assertion of direct payment of the subcontract price under Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry of the plaintiff and the intervenor.

2. The reasons for the admitting this case by the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following 3.3.. to the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. Details to be added.

A. The plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor asserted that they are obligated to remove 169 units of the building subject to removal of 216 units of the building and remove 806 units of 25 tons of truck, among the removal wastes equivalent to 3,090 units of 3,090 units of 392,30,000 units of 392,300 units of 392,300 units of 300 units of 210,100 won of the cost of removal of wastes (the cost of removal of 312,200,000 won - the amount of 130,000,000 won of the cost of removal of wastes).

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff removed 169 units among the buildings subject to removal of 216 units only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 12-1 through 3, and evidence Nos. 14, and 14, and that the Plaintiff removed the removal wastes equivalent to 806 units out of the removal wastes equivalent to a total of 3,090 units of the 25 tons truck, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, the above assertion by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s successor is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s successor intervenor, as well as A.S. Development.