Hello, this is Attorney Bae Ki-hyung at Cheongchul Law Firm.

When a prime contractor (수급인) at a construction site goes bankrupt, subcontractors (하수급인) often request direct payment from the project owner (도급인) to recover unpaid subcontract amounts. The owner often counters: "We already paid an advance to the contractor, so once we set off remaining progress payments against the advance, there's nothing left to pay the subcontractor directly."

Subcontractors find this unjust — being denied payment for their work due to the owner's advance setoff. With advance payment guarantors involved, disputes can escalate into litigation worth hundreds of millions of won. The key practical question is which takes legal priority: "advance setoff" or "subcontract direct payment".

This article explains the principle for conflicts between the owner's advance setoff and the subcontractor's direct payment claim, and the requirements for an 'exceptional settlement clause' that can give priority to subcontractor direct payment.

Priority of Advance Setoff vs Subcontract Direct Payment — Supreme Court Principle and Exception

Principle: Advance Setoff Takes Priority Over Direct Payment Claim

The Supreme Court holds that, in principle, "setoff of advance payment against progress payments takes priority over the subcontractor's direct payment claim."

When advance payment has been made and contract termination occurs, the contractor's progress (including the subcontractor's portion) must first be deducted from the advance. Only if construction payment remains can the subcontract amount be paid directly to the subcontractor. Without separate agreement, the owner can set off the advance against unpaid progress payments first (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40109, September 20, 2007).

Exception: Two Requirements for Recognized 'Exceptional Settlement Clauses'

However, this principle can be reversed by certain provisions protecting subcontractors. If parties have agreed to an 'exceptional settlement clause' excluding specific amounts from advance setoff, the conclusion changes entirely.

Courts recognize the following as exceptional settlement clauses that protect subcontractor direct payment priority:

1. General Conditions Proviso: When the construction contract's general conditions include explicit text such as "If subcontract amounts are paid directly, setoff (against advance) may apply only to the remainder after such payment". The owner cannot refuse direct payment claiming automatic advance setoff (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31211, May 13, 2010).

2. Special Conditions with Explicit Agreement: Provisions such as "the amount payable to the subcontractor excluding labor costs may be set off against advance refund claims at equivalent value" — clearly excluding specific amounts (e.g., labor costs) that must be paid directly from the advance setoff scope.

Caution: Private Agreement Between Contractor and Subcontractor is Insufficient — Guarantor Defense Requirement

A critical practical point: a mere consent letter from the prime contractor to the subcontractor stating "we agree to direct payment of unpaid wages" is insufficient. Such private agreements between contractor and subcontractor cannot be asserted against the advance payment guarantor (who bears refund liability), so courts do not recognize them as legitimate exceptional settlement clauses. The exception provision must be incorporated into the contract between owner and contractor itself.

Practical Response Points for Subcontractors and Owners

Therefore, before being deployed to a site or requesting direct payment due to contractor cash flow issues, subcontractors should verify whether the prime contract (general and special conditions) includes an "exceptional settlement clause excluding advance setoff for subcontract direct payment".

Owners should also document settlement order between direct payment and advance from the contracting stage to avoid double payment risk between subcontractor direct payment requests and guarantor advance refund refusals.

Disputes involving subcontract direct payment and advance setoff can yield very different outcomes depending on subtle contract language interpretation and timing of direct payment notice. Specific legal review from the early stage is essential.

Cheongchul Law Firm provides optimal legal solutions to protect your rightful construction payments based on deep understanding of complex construction site cash flows and subcontract law. If you face challenges with subcontract direct payment refusal or advance settlement issues, please consult Cheongchul Law Firm's experts.

------

Attorney Bae Ki-hyung previously worked at the Defense Installations Agency and the construction/real estate team of a major law firm, providing legal advice and litigation services on the entire process of large-scale construction including government contracts, defense facility projects, and SOC construction. Contact us anytime for assistance with government contracts, civilian construction, public procurement contracts, and government property matters.

* * *

Cheongchul Law Firm consists exclusively of attorneys from Korea's top 5 law firms, prosecutors, and corporate legal teams. We form teams of specialists tailored to each case, providing comprehensive solutions beyond resolving specific issues — focusing on what clients ultimately want.