The part of the judgment below against the defendant concerning damages for delay shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Ground of appeal No. 1) The Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”)

(1) According to Article 14(1) of the Subcontract Act, where a principal contractor is unable to pay the subcontract price due to the suspension of payment, bankruptcy, etc. of the principal contractor, and where a subcontractor requests a subcontractor to pay the subcontract price (Article 14(1)1), the ordering person shall directly pay the subcontractor the subcontract price corresponding to the portion of the manufacture, repair, construction, or service performed by the subcontractor. According to Article 14(2) of the Subcontract Act, if any of the above causes arises, the obligation to pay the principal contractor to the subcontractor and the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor to the subcontractor shall be deemed extinguished within the scope. However, there is no provision excluding the effectiveness of compulsory execution or preservation execution conducted prior to the occurrence of the cause for direct payment under Article 14 of the Subcontract Act. Therefore, where the principal contractor’s third-party creditor has preserved the principal contractor’s claims against the ordering person due to seizure, provisional seizure, etc., the lower court determined that the claim covered by the execution falls under the amount covered by the seizure, etc., as follows (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da2384, 2015).

The instant construction project was contracted (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”).