1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant D's appeal are all dismissed.

2. Any occurrence between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the judgment as follows. Therefore, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The part of the last subsection (a) of Article 2-2 is deleted, and, therefore, the obligation to pay the balance of the construction works of this case is against Defendant D, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B and Defendant C are parties to the construction contract of this case is without merit.

The following shall be added to paragraph (b) of Article II:

1) As to the direct claim of Defendant B and C, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B and Defendant C have a direct claim for construction remainder under Article 14(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. According to Article 2(2) of the Subcontract Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontract Act, the prime contractor subject to the Subcontract Act is an entrepreneur who is not a small and medium entrepreneur and has entrusted the manufacture, etc. to a small and medium entrepreneur, or the prime contractor subject to the Subcontract Act is more than the number of other small and medium entrepreneurs whose annual sales or regular employees in the immediately preceding business year are entrusted with the manufacture, etc., and is more than the number of other small and medium entrepreneurs whose annual sales or regular employees in the immediately preceding business year are entrusted with the manufacture, etc. [excluding a small and medium entrepreneur whose annual sales or annual employees are determined by Presidential Decree (in cases of the construction, the value of the construction capacity is less than three billion

However, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that Defendant D constitutes a principal contractor under the Subcontract Act, and the Plaintiff’s claim for direct payment of subcontract consideration under the Subcontract Act is without merit to further examine.

Furthermore, according to the above facts and evidence, Defendant D’s design of the instant construction work.