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. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified in light of the evidence submitted by the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that the defendant is not a party to the subcontract of this case, and therefore, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the actual contractor of the instant subcontract was a contractor for the instant subcontract without a construction license as a sole contractor, and it is merely that the Defendant was a contractor for the instant subcontract, and the Plaintiff was aware that the instant subcontract was being implemented between C and actual contractor. Therefore, the Defendant, who is merely a contractor for the instant subcontract, is not entitled to seek payment of the construction cost under the instant subcontract.

B. Determination 1) Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract, and the interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party has given to the act of expressing the intent. In a case where a written document is prepared between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning that the party gives to the act of expressing the intent should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written in the document, regardless of the party’s internal intent, although not being bound by the phrase used in the document. In such a case, unless there are special circumstances, unless the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010).