The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the subcontract consideration to be paid to the subcontractor by the Plaintiff, who is the ordering person, according to the direct payment agreement, was the remainder after settling the advance payment that was paid to the subcontractor by the Dacheon Construction Co., Ltd., a principal contractor, among the subcontract consideration corresponding to the part executed by the subcontractor

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, such determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on appropriation of advance

B. On the second ground of its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant should pay the agreed interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the advance payment as to the whole amount not used in advance, which is not the balance remaining after deducting the advance payment from the advance payment.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, such determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on advance payment interest

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal, the lower court determined that the first ground for appeal did not include the employment insurance premium and industrial accident compensation insurance premium that are not actually paid in the pre-paid construction cost to be deducted from the advance payment of this case.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the pre-paid construction cost.

B. As to the second ground for appeal, the purport of Article 14(2) of the former Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (amended by Act No. 12709, May 28, 2014) is to be examined in light of the content of Article 14(1).