1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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 as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows.

2. From No. 4 to No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part cited in the court of first instance: “J bears the obligation to pay KRW 100 million to L; however, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to L on his/her behalf upon F’s request on or around May 2013 according to the “Agreement on the Settlement of Construction Costs” between L and L which was the representative director of J or F’s agent. Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim reimbursement of delegated duties under Article 688(1) of the Civil Act. Even if the said “Agreement on the Settlement of Construction Costs” did not reach J, the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim reimbursement of expenses under Article 739(1) of the Civil Act, insofar as the Plaintiff fulfilled his/her obligation as another person’s business instead of performing his/her obligation.”

The five pages 5 of the first instance judgment "Ap. 7, 9, and 12" are "Ap. 7, 9, 12, and 20."

After the same page 13th judgment of execution of this case rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that "(3) at the time when the transfer of the claim for the construction cost of this case was made against the plaintiff, the representative director of the J was not a legitimate representative at the time when the "agreement on the settlement of construction cost" of the plaintiff's assertion was made, and the above agreement was led by L without the F's participation, and the J did not bear the responsibility for the expression representative act of F and L, and the judgment of execution of this case became final and conclusive upon the issuance of the judgment of execution of this case which rejected the plaintiff's claim that the effect of the above agreement extends to J, and ④ at the first instance court of the above lawsuit (the Busan District Court 2014Gahap3194), F did not approve the plaintiff to repay the above contract price of KRW 100,000 on behalf of J for the settlement of the claim for the construction cost of this case.