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. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and it is acknowledged that the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are legitimate even in light of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and evidence D and E's testimony [Provided, That the part not believed among witness E's testimony excluding the part not stating "the owner" at the time of preparation of the written statement of this case].

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for further determination as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional Judgment

A. On the fourth part of the first instance judgment, the fourth part of the first instance judgment added “(Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act is jointly and severally liable if several persons jointly and severally assume an obligation on account of an act that constitutes a commercial activity to one or all of them, and the Defendant shall be jointly and severally liable for the total amount of KRW 50,000 as indicated in each of the instant judgments).”

B. According to Article 14 (1) 2 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance added "(s) where the ordering person, the prime contractor, and the subcontractor agree to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor" to the subcontractor, the ordering person shall pay the subcontract price equivalent to the part executed by the subcontractor directly to the subcontractor. In light of the fact that the ordering person stipulates that the subcontractor shall pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, the ordering person may be deemed to have expressed his/her intention to directly pay the subcontract price through the instant written form

C. The defendant asserts that the part of "the owner" of each of the instant letters was later subdivided.

Whether or not documents have been authenticly prepared can be proven by comparison of penmatics or seals (Article 359 of the Civil Procedure Act), and this court shall act on the second date for pleading in the appellate trial.