The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as is in accordance with the main sentence of

Of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, "B" and "B" are all "B" and the second contract.

8. The following shall be added to five (5) pages of the first instance judgment:

The Defendant asserts that the instant contract was amended to the effect that, as the Defendant was unable to gain any profit through the instant contract by concluding the first contract with the same amount as the price for the execution of the instant contract, the Defendant entered into the instant contract with the amount as the same as the price for the execution of the instant contract. However, considering that there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant had expressed his intent to modify the content of the instant contract after the conclusion of the first contract, the Defendant’s assertion alone is difficult to acknowledge that the content of the instant contract was modified, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, adding the following contents following the 16th 16th eth 16th of the first judgment of the court of first instance, “The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.”

“The Defendant asserts to the effect that it is not attributable to the Defendant that the Plaintiff paid the amount exceeding the enforcement price under the instant contract because F did not pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor. Therefore, the Defendant asserts to the effect that there is no reason attributable to the Defendant for the payment exceeding the enforcement price.

However, it can be seen that the defendant proposed the defective company as a contractor, such as bankruptcy during the construction of this case by E and F, was the cause of the plaintiff's excessive payment.