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. On September 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the former Do road management office and D Corporation (hereinafter “D Corporation”) with the term “D Corporation (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the construction work cost of KRW 876,545,00 (hereinafter the same shall apply) and the term of the contract from September 6, 2013 to June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant prime contract”), and around that time, the Defendant entered into a subcontract for construction works with the former Do road management office and the former Do road management office and the former Do road management office (hereinafter “D Corporation”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”: Provided, That the Defendant and E drafted a construction subcontract agreement to re-subcontract the construction work of reinforced concrete between September 9, 2013 and June 30, 2014, on the grounds that the Defendant possessed only a construction license for reinforced concrete, and that the Defendant re-subcontracted the construction work of reinforced concrete to E during the instant prime contract period from September 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014.

B. On December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to execute G construction works among E’s representative director and main construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) at KRW 20,900,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) and completed the instant construction works on January 24, 2014.

On the other hand, two contracts of this case were prepared as of December 1, 2013, and one of which is the name of the contractor H as the defendant's on-site director, and the above I was written as the defendant's representative (Evidence A 1), and the other contract was written as C as the defendant's on-site director.

(A) Evidence No. 5) (c)

However, around December 2013, 2013, the business owner that the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract, the Defendant’s on-site agent who reported to the Road Management Office of Jeonnam-do in relation to the instant prime contract construction was the Defendant’s employee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 10, 14, and Eul evidence No. 4, and the first instance court.