2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party C.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s summary of the first instance judgment acknowledged that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 3 million, which the Defendant received from the Plaintiff as an innbsium, was appropriated for the repayment of the instant finalized claim on the ground that it is not indicated in the work log.

① However, the Defendant had already received the above money from the Plaintiff before making the disbursement, and the Defendant did not enter in the work log. ② On January 2009, the first instance judgment acknowledged the Defendant’s satisfaction of the claim in this case against the agreement that the Plaintiff would have to pay the confirmed claim in addition to the daily amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 in addition to the daily amount when the Plaintiff entrusted the construction work at the racing site. Although the Plaintiff did not assert that the credit amount of KRW 3 million should be appropriated for the confirmed claim in this case, it is recognized in violation of the principle of pleadings. ③ Around October 1, 2009, the Plaintiff settled the first work at the racing site by paying KRW 13,598,500 to the Defendant around October 1, 2009. At that time, the Defendant’s submission of the settlement log in the mutual account was approved, and it is unlawful and unjust to have the burden of proof raised by the Defendant against the agreement on the above mutual account.

B. First of all, according to the statement No. 3-2 as to the master plan, the plaintiff transferred KRW 600,000 to the defendant's account as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant withdrawn KRW 500,000 on February 5, 2009, KRW 500,000 on February 7, 2009, and KRW 80,000 on February 17, 2009. The plaintiff transferred KRW 60,000 to the defendant's account on April 28, 2009, and the defendant transferred KRW 60,000 to the defendant's account.