1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of Paragraph 3 among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this case

2. The changed part

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the part of the direct payment of subcontract consideration is that where a principal contractor becomes unable to pay subcontract consideration due to the suspension of payment by the principal contractor, bankruptcy, other similar causes, or permission, authorization, license, registration, etc. for his/her business, Article 14(1)1 of the Subcontract Act provides that when the subcontractor requests a direct payment of subcontract consideration, the ordering person shall directly pay the subcontractor the subcontract consideration equivalent to the part that the subcontractor manufactured, repaired, constructed, or provided services. 2) In this case, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the determination on the part that the construction quantity is confirmed (i.e., evidence Nos. 4, 6, 10 through 12, evidence Nos. 2, evidence Nos. 4, evidence No. 10 and witness No. 2, evidence No. 9 of the first instance trial, and evidence No. 9 on the part of witness E of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff prepared on the part of the said subcontracted construction project from March 22, 2010 to the date of execution of the subcontracted construction project.