1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall be the Plaintiff 135,498.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) are companies engaging in the construction business, and J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) are companies engaged in the development and remodeling of the E hot spring site in Incheon po-gun.

(The defendant C seems to have actually participated in the decision-making process of the non-party company, and when referring to the non-party company and the defendant C, hereinafter referred to as "the side of the non-party company").

On July 13, 2016, the defendant company received a proposal from the non-party company to entrust E Hot Spring Water Collection Project (hereinafter referred to as the "instant project"), and submitted a written estimate (A evidence No. 1-2, hereinafter referred to as the "the first estimate of this case") containing a detailed statement of the instant project on the side of the non-party company. The main contents are as follows.

The location of the Defendant Company in Yeonsu-gu, Incheon. The location of the Defendant Company in the name of the dog shall submit as follows: HTL/ FAX M/NO for the type of interior construction specialized in the interior building of Yeonsu-gu, Incheon. HTL/ FAX M/NO, design, or non-party company you will submit the particulars of the above construction.

Other special articles: 193,000,000 (not later than 193,00,000) of the gold amount for the installation of a hot spring reservoir in the name of public official on 13th day of July, 2016: Gohap 142,73,950 45,067,400 187,801,350 in the column (not later than 142,73,950) of non-definite non-finite in the separate space of value-added tax.

C. When the Defendant Company did not intend to directly perform the instant construction work due to other construction works that had been entrusted at the time, the Defendant Company had expressed its intent to determine whether the instant construction works could be performed by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was responsible for the instant construction works.

We examine whether the non-party company directly contracted to the plaintiff, and whether the non-party company contracted to the defendant company and the defendant company subcontracted to the plaintiff.

On August 20, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant Company an estimate of the instant construction work (No. 11, hereinafter “instant schedule”) by e-mail, and then sent it.