1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are the same purport as the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance was

On January 12, 2018, the day before the instant lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E (E) claiming construction cost (E) and filed a lawsuit against the Director General of the On-Site (F.622,015 won) representing E, and the basic construction cost (F.622,015 won) and retaining wall (F.29,37,985 won in total) out of the soundproof wall construction work in the instant lawsuit. However, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of construction cost in the instant lawsuit on August 29, 2019 on the ground that the said contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and G, and the said judgment became final and conclusive, which is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said contract was subcontracted by the Defendant in the instant lawsuit.

As stated in the first instance court, there is no document such as a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant that recognizes that the subcontract has been concluded or that there is no document that can presume that the contract has been concluded between the defendant and E, and there is no document that can be known that the contract has been concluded between the defendant and E.

In addition, in the relevant judgment, G’s right to representation was not recognized, and the credibility of G’s statement was low, but this circumstance is not immediately a ground for recognizing the existence of the subcontract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the instant lawsuit.

In the recording book (No. 13) of G and the Plaintiff’s dialogue submitted by the Plaintiff in the trial of a political party, G is not clear about whether G had given a subcontract to H (her husband of the Defendant) and at the same time, its meaning is unclear.