1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where “Defendant C” is deemed as “Codefendant C of the first instance judgment” on the grounds of the first instance judgment, and thus, this part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of “Codefendant C of the first instance judgment.”

2. The plaintiff in the judgment of the court of this case asserts that, at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the defendant prepared the contract of this case, instructed and supervised the progress of the construction of this case, and received the payment of the construction price in the account of the defendant, and that E who subcontracted electrical construction among the construction of this case was awarded a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit for claiming construction price against the defendant. Thus, the defendant is the person who actually received the construction of this case or the joint defendant C and the joint defendant of the court of first instance, and thus, the defendant bears the obligation to restore

According to each statement of Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 7, 11 through 15 (including each number), the plaintiff remitted the construction price of this case to the account in the name of the defendant. It is acknowledged that Eul, who was awarded a subcontract for the construction work of this case, filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim of construction price under Changwon District Court 2015Gau165 against the defendant, and the judgment in favor was rendered. As seen earlier, the contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial, and the expression of intent to cancel the contract of this case against the co-defendant C of the first instance trial. Considering that the above facts alone, the defendant received a substantial supply of the construction work of this case.

It is insufficient to recognize that the co-defendant C and the co-defendant C are co-contractors, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case is dismissed as it is without merit.