1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal under paragraph (2) below, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

(a) in the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the phrase “7.1 million won” in the 15th sentence shall be deemed to read “7.6 million won”;

(b) On the third and third sides of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

“F. D drafted a tax invoice as of September 30, 2016 of the premium amounting to KRW 109,090,909, value-added tax amounting to KRW 10,909,091 as the other party to the Defendant, and filed a revised tax return on September 30, 2016 (from July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016) including the above amount in the Gangnam Tax Office around June 7, 2017.”

(c) conduct Nos. 9,10 of the first instance judgment is as follows.

"In the absence of dispute", "A's entries in Gap's 1 through 6, 12 through 16, 18, 26, 27, Eul's 1 through 8, 12, 19 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings"

(d) Forms 4, 2, and 18 of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

“B. In general, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. If there is any difference in the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, and thus, the interpretation of the party’s intent is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the party’s genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212, Jan. 25, 2018). In other words, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the facts of recognition, the evidence mentioned earlier, and the purport of the entire pleading in the evidence Nos. 10 and 18, unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant directly operated