1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification and addition as follows.

After the 6th five pages of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the subcontract price to the Defendant was extinguished, as stated in the following: “The Plaintiff agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor by the original Defendant and the Defendant’s subcontractors, and some subcontractors filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff by claiming a direct payment of the subcontract price, which is equivalent to KRW 125,290,000 in total (= KRW 12,200,000 in total).”

The "cost of repairing defects" shall be revised to "cost of repairing defects and subcontract consideration for subcontractors" in the 6th place of the judgment of the first instance.

The following shall be added to the 7th page of the first instance judgment:

[4) According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 of the judgment on the assertion that the amount of direct payment claim by the subcontractor is equivalent to the amount of the subcontract, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the original defendant and the representative of the subcontractor by occupation shall be acknowledged as having agreed to pay the subcontract price directly through the procedure, such as submitting a certificate of contract by occupation after confirming the occupational defects with respect to the method of direct payment for the subcontractor, and submitting a certificate of contract by occupation to the owner (the plaintiff) after completing the work for non-construction and defective parts, and submitting the certificate of contract performance to the owner (the plaintiff) after completing the work for non-construction and defective parts. However, there is no evidence to prove that the subcontractor by the plaintiff had completed the above procedure.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.