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.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts to be stated in this part.

(약칭은 제1심판결의 약칭을 그대로 따른다). ▣ 제1심판결문 2쪽 위에서 6줄의 ‘갑 제1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9호증’을 ‘갑 제1~3, 5, 6, 9, 16호증’으로 고쳐 쓴다.

2. The primary cause of the claim (the same shall apply to the assertion made at the first instance); and

A. According to the instant direct payment agreement, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff paid the non-party company the agreed direct payment amount of KRW 296,070,650 due to the instant subcontract (i.e., the agreed direct payment amount of KRW 1,288,650,000 - the Defendant’s payment of KRW 184,030,000 - the Plaintiff’s direct payment of KRW 808,549,350). However, the Plaintiff paid the construction amount, including

However, due to the instant direct payment agreement, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction price under the instant contract against the Defendant was extinguished pursuant to Article 14(1)2 and (2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act. The Defendant received the unpaid construction price under the instant subcontract even though there was no legal ground for holding it unpaid.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 296,070,650 won and damages for delay with return of unjust enrichment.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to view that the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 170,355,150 (i.e., KRW 296,070,650 - 125,715,500) that was reduced as seen earlier by the Plaintiff as the construction cost under the instant subcontract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the defendant paid KRW 125,715,500 to the non-party company as the representative of the joint purchase and purchase company of this case on February 14, 2018. This means that the defendant paid the construction cost to the non-party company as the construction cost under the subcontract of this case.