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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable and acceptable.

(except for the part of the claim against C). 2. As to the argument at the appellate court

A. 1) The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not receive all the construction payment from the plaintiff 1) that the defendant paid only KRW 335,160,000 to the defendant according to the ratio of 83.79% of the construction work period of this case, and the plaintiff cannot be viewed as the construction payment of this case because the plaintiff transferred the money to the account of C and G (the spouse of the subcontractor). Thus, it is unreasonable to claim compensation for damages against the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff was paid all the construction payment from the plaintiff. 2) In full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning and based on this, it is justifiable to recognize that the plaintiff paid the defendant the total amount of KRW 427,300,000 exceeding the amount of KRW 400,000 as stipulated in the contract of this case through C and G accounts.

There is no error as argued by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

B. The defendant's assertion 1 that the plaintiff excluded the defendant and allowed F to perform construction work. The defendant also asserts that since the plaintiff excluded the defendant and caused F to directly perform construction work by modifying the design of the contract of this case and paid the construction price to F, it is unreasonable that the defendant bears the obligation to complete the non-construction part, repair of defects, and pay liquidated damages. 2) The judgment of the first instance court is merely against the subcontractor who entered into the subcontract with the defendant as to the construction work of this case on the grounds of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, which are recognized by comprehensively taking into account the adopted evidence.