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. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2011, the Defendant was awarded a contract by C for the construction of a new neighborhood living facility located in Incheon Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “D”) with the contract amount of KRW 1,163,052,00 and the construction period from September 19, 201 to November 20, 201.

B. Around September 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant’s registration director and the field director, and with respect to DD glass projects (hereinafter “instant construction projects”), with respect to the subcontractor, the subcontractor, the Plaintiff, the construction amount of KRW 22,00,000, construction period, and the construction period from September 25, 201 to December 20, 201 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

C. The Plaintiff completed construction under the instant subcontract, and the Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff around April 9, 2012 as construction cost under the instant subcontract according to the direction of E.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into the instant subcontract with the Defendant, and completed construction accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 17,000,000 (=22,000,000 - 5,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant merely awarded a lump sum contract to E using the trade name “F” for each construction work in D construction sites including the instant construction work, and there was no fact that the right of representation to conclude the instant subcontract was granted to E, and the party to the instant subcontract is not the Defendant. 2) Even if the Defendant is liable to pay the construction cost under the instant subcontract, the Defendant is not the Defendant.

Even if the Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff according to the direction of E, and KRW 15,790,000 as of May 23, 2013, and KRW 15,790,00 as of July 2, 2013, the Defendant fully repaid the construction cost under the instant subcontract.

3. Determination

A. The instant case.