1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

(F) The judgment of the court of first instance refers to a “original construction of all stock companies,” which takes the thirteenth from the second bottom of the judgment, as a “original construction of all stock companies (hereinafter referred to as “original construction”)”, a “Supplementary construction corporation,” which takes the 11th part from the second bottom to a “Supplementary Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as a “Supplementary Construction”)”, and a “dual construction” which takes the 8th part from the second bottom to a “dual construction,” respectively. However, the following judgments shall be added:

2. In the event that the Plaintiff filed an application for resumption of argument after the closure of argument at the appellate trial and the construction was performed by re-subcontracted by the Korea Comprehensive Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Comprehensive Construction Corporation”) that originally entered into a contract for construction with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, who was awarded a contract for construction after the Korea Comprehensive Construction, paid the construction cost to the Korea Comprehensive Construction Corporation, the Plaintiff’s payment of the construction cost to the Korea Comprehensive Construction. However, even if the Plaintiff had entered into the contract with the Defendant at the time of the execution of the construction work, the Defendant who would have the benefit accrued therefrom should return the amount equivalent to the construction

However, the Plaintiff did not present any assertion or evidence as to the order of the court’s tin preparation to the effect that the Plaintiff or all original construction (the company prior to the division) succeeded to the status as the contractor from the Han General Construction, which originally entered into the contract with the Defendant for the instant construction project, and that the Plaintiff was served the Defendant’s consent, etc.

If the plaintiff did not assert or prove that he succeeded to the status of the existing contract for construction works from Hanju General Construction, it seems that the contract was based on the contract between the defendant and Hanju General Construction.