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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Defendant entered into a subcontract for installation works of telecommunications equipment in 2011 and 2012) 1) The Defendant is SK Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK Construction”).

(2) In 2011, the Defendant received a contract for installation of telecommunications equipment (C Facility) from the Defendant, who did not raise funds for construction. At the time, the Defendant held office as the Defendant’s intra-company director from February 17, 201 to July 15, 201, but used the Defendant’s position as the director from around 2010 to December 201 regardless of registration.

On January 11, 2011, the Plaintiff paid the price for the construction of telecommunications equipment in the year 201 to the Plaintiff with the contract price of KRW 700 million, the construction period from January 1, 201, to December 31, 201, and the Plaintiff paid the subcontract price to the re-subcontracting enterprise by having the Plaintiff conclude a re-subcontract construction contract, and by having the Plaintiff pre-subcontract the construction cost, after having the construction work completed.

3) D) The Defendant received a contract for the installation of communications equipment in the year 2012, as in the year 2011 from the 2011 from KS construction (hereinafter “instant construction”).

As to the Plaintiff, on April 12, 2012, a written subcontract agreement (Evidence A 4; hereinafter “instant subcontract agreement”) stating that the contract amount shall be KRW 800 million between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the contract amount shall be paid within seven days from the date of receiving the payment from the ordering place (SK Construction). Accordingly, the instant subcontract agreement is referred to as “instant subcontract agreement.”

The defendant's employment seal was written and affixed to the defendant.

Since then, the plaintiff has re-subcontracted the construction of this case to E operated by D according to the direction of the defendant, and completed all of the construction of this case.

B. At the time of the issuance of promissory notes and the payment of promissory notes, and the Plaintiff received KRW 508,957,90 from the Defendant as the construction cost of the instant case, D, which led to the progress of the instant construction, around January 2013, was temporarily set aside by the Plaintiff.