The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except where the judgment of the court of first instance is added to the argument that the defendant is satisfied as the reasons for appeal in the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's grounds for appeal

A. Even if the Defendant’s assertion was based on the instant direct payment agreement, the Defendant bears the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiff (contractor) within the scope of the obligation to pay the construction price to E (original contractor).

The Plaintiff’s right to demand direct payment of subcontract consideration against the Defendant is due on December 14, 2018, which was approved for the use of the instant multi-family housing, and the Defendant paid KRW 9,522,373,594 in excess of KRW 9.22 billion for the increased construction cost to E on December 14, 2018. As such, the Defendant is no longer liable for the payment of subcontract consideration to E.

Even if the Plaintiff’s right to demand direct payment of subcontract consideration against the Defendant occurred on April 18, 2018 when the instant direct payment agreement was reached, and within the scope thereof, E’s right to demand direct payment of subcontract consideration against the Defendant was transferred to the Plaintiff, the Defendant already paid 8,585,723,257 won exceeding KRW 8,120,000,000 at the time of payment to E on April 18, 2018, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the contract consideration to E.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff is merely taking over the claim for the construction cost of E that does not exist and thus cannot directly claim the subcontract price against the Defendant.

B. 1) In full view of the facts acknowledged by the first instance judgment cited by this Court, the instant direct payment agreement constitutes a case where E (original contractor) transfers the claim for construction price to the Defendant (contractor) to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant (the ordering person) who is the debtor gave consent without withholding his objection, in fact, by putting together the following circumstances known in view of the overall purport of the pleadings.