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 person conducting the completion cleaning business, etc. under the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person conducting the job placement business, the dispatch of human resources, etc. under the trade name of D.

B. On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the completion cleaning on September 2017 at the request of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to conduct the Frando (hereinafter “instant services”), which was executed by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) in Ulsan-do.

C. The plaintiff was not paid the service price of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, witness G of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) since the plaintiff entered into the service contract of this case with the defendant, the defendant's assertion 2) as the defendant's company dispatched human resources to E, the defendant introduced the plaintiff in E to introduce the completion cleaning company, and there was no fact that the plaintiff entered into the service contract of this case with the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. In the event that there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, and the interpretation of the parties becomes a problem, 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 parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da25699, Jan. 17, 2019). 2) In light of the following circumstances recognized by the descriptions of evidence No. 2 and No. 3, and the purport of the witness testimony and the entire pleading of the first instance trial witness G, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with the Defendant with the service cost of nine million won. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone