1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is a co-defendant in the first instance trial.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract on September 30, 2016 with the completion date of the completion date of the new construction of the ground C C factories on the ground B as of September 30, 2016.

B. On July 26, 2016, 201, the Plaintiff and the aforementioned plant-building construction (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to subcontract the construction cost of KRW 44,000,000, down payment of KRW 11,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 16,50,000, and the remainder of KRW 16,50,000 after completion of construction (including each value-added tax).

C. Upon executing the instant electrical construction, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of pre-use inspection on September 29, 2016, and provided it for comprehensive sexual construction.

However, the comprehensive construction was paid in total of KRW 16,00,000 until September 19, 2016.

On October 11, 2016, D, the site manager of the Seongdong Comprehensive Construction, requested a fire-fighting certificate in order to undergo a completion inspection to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff could not reduce the fire-fighting certificate unless it receives the payment guarantee of the construction cost.

Accordingly, D requested the Defendant to sign a written confirmation as to whether it is necessary to complete the completion inspection, stating that “The construction cost of the said written confirmation (25,000,000 won) will be paid after completion ( October 30, 2016).” The Defendant signed under the name of the Defendant of the said written confirmation.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant confirmation”). (e)

D issued the instant certificate to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff issued the fire-fighting certificate to D.

Since then, even though the construction of the above plant was completed, the Seongdong Integrated Construction Corporation did not pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional number), D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's argument as to the legitimacy of the appeal for the subsequent completion is about the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal.