2. The appeal shall be made by an incidental appeal; and

Sub-paragraph 3(b) shall be corrected as “E” and Paragraph 3(b) shall be corrected as “E.”

The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's argument is added as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that there was no authority to agree on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor to pay KRW 17,00,000 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff since he did not have the defendant's husband's right to represent the construction work of this case. However, the following circumstances, i.e., ① was the defendant's husband at the time when the plaintiff proposed the construction work of this case to the defendant, ② was present at the defendant's husband at the time of proposing the construction work of this case, ② was visiting several times at the construction site of this case to report the progress of the construction work of this case, while the defendant did not have any fact that the defendant had been present at the construction site of this case, ③ it was difficult for the defendant and the investigation agency, and the defendant's witness's assertion that some of the above witness's right to pay the material price of this case to those who participated in the construction of this case, including the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, were found to have been contrary to the above facts.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.