beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, as the principal contractor, who subcontracted the instant construction to the non-party company, is obligated to pay the meal cost directly to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).
If a subcontractor requests a subcontractor to make a direct payment of the subcontract price equivalent to the part of the manufacture, repair, construction, or service performance under Article 14 (1) of the Subcontract Act, the subcontractor shall be liable to pay it directly to the subcontractor, and the subcontractor shall be extinguished within the scope of the obligation of the subcontractor to pay it directly under paragraph (2) of the same Article.
In addition, Article 14 (4) of the Subcontract Act provides that "When the ordering person directly pays the subcontract price to the subcontractor in question pursuant to paragraph (1), the amount of the subcontract price already paid by the ordering person to the principal contractor shall be deducted, and Article 9 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act provides that "the ordering person shall be liable to pay the subcontract price directly to the principal contractor within the scope of the obligation to pay the principal contractor, within the scope of the obligation to pay the subcontract price." It can be seen that Article 14 (4) of the Subcontract Act intends to protect the subcontractor in preference to the contractor and its general creditor by imposing the subcontractor's obligation to pay the direct payment
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31211 Decided May 13, 2010, etc.).