The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows, except for the case where a part of the facts is dismissed as follows, since the part of “1. Basic Facts” from 3 to 6, 7, is the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] Under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) in the second part and third part are as follows: “Defendant B” in the second part and “Defendant B” in the second part and “B” in the third part and third part and lower than “B.”

Under the second part of the judgment of the first instance, the defendant C shall be deemed to be the co-defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as the "C"), and the defendant C shall be deemed to be the "C" of the fourth and fourth parts.

Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance (A. 4; hereinafter the same shall apply) in Part 9 to "(A. 4)" (A. 4; hereinafter the same shall apply). The part of the judgment of the first instance was "(A. 4; hereinafter the same shall apply)".

On the fourth side of the first instance judgment, “(No. 3; hereinafter “the instant agreement”)” was amended to “(No. 3; hereinafter “the instant agreement”)” as “the instant agreement,” and “the said agreement” as “the instant agreement.”

2. Determination

A. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a construction contract with C and the Defendants, the owner of the instant construction project, and drafted a construction contract agreement (Evidence A 1-1) on the instant construction project.

(2) If the Plaintiff entered into the first contract with B on October 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”). Since then, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with B on October 7, 2013, but the said contract became null and void due to the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain the status of the owner, the instant contract is deemed valid as of October 7, 2013.

However, C as a representative of the owner, is a construction contract under the contract of October 7, 2013 on behalf of the Defendants.