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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On July 25, 2013, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “instant building owners”) decided to construct a multi-family house in Ansan-si C, J, K, L, and M (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff performed the instant construction work. The Plaintiff performed the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's statements in Eul evidence 1, 2, 4 through 7 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D's partial testimony, witness E's testimony in the court of first instance, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the contractor of the instant construction project. The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction project, and the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 4,156,800, out of the construction cost of KRW 61,156,800, and was paid KRW 600,000,000 as part cost because the Defendant was not supplied with the attached parts that the Defendant agreed to supply. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 44,756,800, and delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant D is the contractor of the instant construction project, and the Plaintiff is awarded a subcontract for the instant construction project from D, and the Defendant is merely the construction site manager of the instant construction project, and the Defendant is not obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff.

3. It is acknowledged that the witness D of the first instance trial testified to the effect that “the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost for the steel works during the instant construction work, since he was awarded the instant construction from the owner of the instant construction, and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the steel works during the instant construction work,” the witness D of the first instance trial.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and evidence Nos. 11, i.e., the building owner of this case entered into a standard subcontract agreement for the construction work of this case with D around July 25, 2013, and 2.