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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacturing industry, such as automatic text and steel text, with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person who constructs, repairs, etc. the trade name of D (original title).

B. The design heat Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “design heat”) contracted the Defendant with the construction of the E Hospital’s automatic text, including the construction and installation of the E Hospital’s automatic text (hereinafter “instant automated text”).

C. On June 29, 2012, the Defendant contracted the Plaintiff with the instant automatic text works, F works, and G works (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant construction works”) as KRW 8,190,00 for the construction cost (i.e., KRW 6,530,000 for the instant automatic text works KRW 900,000 for G works KRW 769,000 for the instant automatic text works). On July 16, 2012, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 8,190,000 for the instant construction cost; hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction completion certificate”).

D) The Plaintiff prepared and proposed the instant construction. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,660,00 (i.e., F Corporation KRW 900,000 (= G Corporation KRW 769,000) for the construction cost of the instant case by the Defendant. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 6,530,000 for the instant automatic text, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since the automatic text of this case was not the contract of the defendant, but the design heating contract was made, the plaintiff should claim the construction cost of this case against the design heating contractor who is not the defendant.

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant contracted the instant automatic text work from the design heatr, and subcontracted the instant automatic text work to the Plaintiff.

Since the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s design heat to the E Hospital Medical Service.