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

2. Supplement of judgment

A. The defendant asserts as follows.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract on the instant construction project with the Defendant as the Plaintiff requires the appearance of sales expansion for listing the F agency.

The plaintiff did not actually work, and the non-party company actually worked for the construction.

At the defendant's request, the plaintiff only paid advance payment to the non-party company instead of the defendant.

Therefore, the substance of the above contract is leased, and the above contract, which is its external appearance, is null and void as a false representation, so the advance payment agreement entered into in addition thereto is also null and void.

B. However, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

First of all, as the defendant's assertion, an advance payment agreement cannot be viewed as a contract incidental to the contract.

According to the facts acknowledged in the first instance court, the special condition contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is divided into three billion construction cost, three billion construction cost, advance payment paid by the plaintiff, and advance payment to pay the plaintiff's corporate profits in installments to the plaintiff.

However, since a contract for construction works is an agreement that one party shall pay the price to the other party upon completion of the work, it is consistent with the agreement that the Defendant shall pay the advance payment paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

It can not be seen that there is a logical connection.

In the instant special condition contract, there is no discovery that there is an integrative or logical link between two agreements.

"Advance payments and corporate profits shall be paid by adding up the progress payments for construction works."