1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs underwater construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a corporation that runs ship management business.

B. The Plaintiff is commissioned by the Defendant to perform vessel works, and March 8, 2013 and the same year.

5.6. On November 19, 2013, 2013, Cheongra Shipping Co., Ltd., Cheongra Shipping Co., Ltd.: (a) performed underwater waterproof and lifting operations equivalent to KRW 11,400,000,000 in total; and (b) on November 19, 2013, Cheongra Shipping Co., Ltd., owned by the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., the amount of KRW 4 million in total.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant underwater construction”). C.

Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in the name of the owner of each of the above vessels with respect to the underwater construction of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The parties to the contract of the underwater construction in this case asserted by the plaintiff are the defendants of the ship management business owner, and the defendant is obligated to pay the costs of underwater construction and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is merely entrusted with the management of the ship from the owner of the ship, and the parties to the underwater construction of this case are the plaintiff and the owner of the ship. Thus, the plaintiff shall claim the cost of underwater construction directly against the owner of the ship who is not the defendant.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed in light of the aforementioned evidence evidence evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire arguments. In other words, the Defendant is a ship manager entrusted by the vessel owner and the Plaintiff directly requested construction of underwater water in this case from the Defendant. ② The Plaintiff appears to have performed construction works of the relevant vessel upon the Defendant’s request, and ③ the Plaintiff is merely performing construction works requested by the Defendant, and thus, the owner of the relevant vessel is the owner of the relevant vessel before the work.