2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Appointed Party).

3. The first instance.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs interior fishing with the trade name of “G”, and the Defendant is a person who runs interior decoration business with the trade name of “E”.

B. The Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the Integian Corporation (hereinafter “the instant Corporation”) among the I Company’s housing in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Inc. (hereinafter “Segjin-si”) for KRW 63 million.

C. Ho Jin Ho was requested by the Defendant to pay the subcontract price directly with respect to the instant construction project, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 1, 2013, and KRW 66 million on October 23, 2013.

Around November 2013, when the Defendant was in charge of the instant construction on behalf of the Defendant, the designated parties D prepared and delivered a written consent to direct payment (hereinafter “instant written consent to direct payment”) to the Plaintiff.

The contents of the written statement of non-performance are as follows: “The plaintiff agrees to pay the construction cost of KRW 22 million to the plaintiff to the plaintiff's account directly from E to the plaintiff's account in connection with the F loan construction materials and construction (ver, Igl) being constructed under a subcontract from E (the defendant).” The debtor's column is written as "E (E)" and the joint and several surety column is written as "D."

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff completed a sub-subcontract for the part of the instant construction project, which was sub-subcontracted by the Defendant, and that the remainder of the construction project was 22 million won, and that D was jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder of the construction project to the Plaintiff while preparing and delivering the instant direct payment agreement.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who received KRW 1.5 million from the selected parties D after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered.

Therefore, the defendant and the Appointor D shall jointly and severally serve the plaintiff with a copy of the complaint in this case.