1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the part of the judgment on whether the defendant's obligation to pay the construction price under Article 14 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter "subcontract") is extinguished shall be as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the fact that the "this date of judgment" in Section 14 is "the date of the judgment of the court of first instance", is the same as the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, so it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The first instance court determined that Article 14 of the Subcontract Act does not apply on the ground that B does not meet the requirements of “original contractor” as provided by Article 2(2) of the Subcontract Act. However, the principal contractor of the instant construction project falls under “Defendant” and “the ordering person,” who has subcontracted construction to the Defendant, who is the principal contractor, and such determination by the first instance court is inappropriate. The said determination by the first instance court is inappropriate. In the case of “when the ordering person and the subcontractor have agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor” as provided by Article 14(1)2 of the Subcontract Act, the subcontract price corresponding to the part executed by the subcontractor shall be directly paid to the subcontractor by the ordering person, and the obligation of the principal contractor to pay the subcontractor the subcontract price to the principal contractor and the obligation of the principal contractor to pay the subcontractor the subcontractor the subcontract price is extinguished within the scope of the said obligation (Article 14(1) and (2) of the Subcontract Act)

In relation to the instant construction contract, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there was an agreement on direct payment between the Defendant, the principal contractor, and the Plaintiff, the subcontractor.

However, the entry of Eul Nos. 2, 3, 8 through 12, 17 through 20, 22(including paper numbers) is the ordering person. B is the ordering person.