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 parties' assertion

A. According to the contract, the Plaintiff filed a claim under the contract with the Defendant for construction of reinforced concrete construction among the extension works of the building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building

(2) After receiving an additional payment, the Defendant did not pay KRW 16 million out of the instant additional construction cost. Accordingly, even if a person who directly concluded the instant additional construction contract with the Plaintiff is D, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the said additional construction cost and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff. Even if the person who directly concluded the instant additional construction contract with D, the Defendant’s granting the Defendant’s right of representation to D to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is liable under the instant additional construction contract in accordance with the express representation clause in Article 125 of the Civil Act. (2) Since the claim based on the employer’s liability concluded the instant additional construction contract under the name of the Defendant and incurred damages to the Plaintiff by using the Defendant’s account in accordance with the employer’s compensation provisions under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Defendant 1) The instant additional construction contract was concluded by the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was well aware of such fact, and thus, the parties to the instant additional construction contract are D. Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant is inappropriate as the party’s standing to sue, and even if lawful, the Plaintiff’s claim against the non-party to the instant additional construction contract was not reasonable. 2) Even if the Defendant is a party to the instant additional construction contract, the instant additional construction amount claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged as is.

2. In a lawsuit seeking a performance of judgment as to a defense prior to the merits, he/she asserts that he/she is the claimant.