The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purport of Article 14(2) of the former Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (amended by Act No. 12709, May 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Subcontract Act”) is to: (a) in cases where an agreement is reached between the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor; (b) the ordering person is not obligated to pay the subcontractor the full subcontract price directly to the subcontractor; (c) rather, the subcontractor is obligated to pay the subcontract price equivalent to the portion of the manufacture, repair, construction, or service performance by the subcontractor directly to the subcontractor; and (d) the obligation to pay the subcontractor the subcontract price to the prime contractor is extinguished within the scope of

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Da6311, Sept. 12, 2013). Meanwhile, there is no provision excluding the effect of compulsory execution or preservation execution conducted prior to the occurrence of a cause for direct payment under the former Subcontract Act. Therefore, where a third-party creditor of a principal contractor has preserved claims against the principal contractor due to seizure or provisional seizure, etc. before a cause for direct payment of subcontract consideration under Article 14 of the former Subcontract Act occurred, the claims covered by the principal contractor shall not be extinguished notwithstanding the direct cause for payment of the subcontract price incurred thereafter, notwithstanding the direct cause

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64769 Decided September 5, 2003). In addition, with respect to the amount of claims preserved by seizure, etc. as above, the subcontractor does not have a direct claim against the subcontractor, and the principal contractor’s claim for construction cost against the ordering person shall not be transferred to the subcontractor to the extent of the amount of claims preserved by the execution, unless there are other special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da67351 Decided November 13, 2014). 2. We examine the findings and judgments of the lower court on November 13, 2014.

(1) The facts acknowledged by the court below are.