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 this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, stated in the second column of the judgment of the court of second instance.

“The part of the wooden Work shall be entrusted to the Plaintiff” (the Defendant shall have been entrusted to the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant shall have been entrusted to the Plaintiff with the said Work.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that there was no construction work as above.

However, in the response of November 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff carried out three interior works (the meaning of the above (1) through (3) as a field work manager (on the part of the Plaintiff; (b) further, the progress rate of the above three construction works reaches 75%; (c) delay in the settlement of the construction price of the ordering agency; (d) delay in the payment of the construction price to the subcontractor; and (e) on the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid the said three construction costs to the Plaintiff upon completion of settlement as requested by the Plaintiff; (b) from the preparatory brief dated 11, 2017 to the preparatory brief dated 11, 2017 to the Defendant’s name, the Defendant was aware of the fact of borrowing the loan under the name of the Defendant C.

In light of the following facts: (a) only asserted that the construction cost requested by the Plaintiff is excessive and unfair, and (b) the Defendant only asserted that the Plaintiff was aware of the loan in the name of the Defendant in the preparatory document dated February 14, 2018, which was submitted after filing an appeal on February 14, 2018, and submitted on March 20, 2018, the Defendant is deemed to have already led to the confession of the above facts.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion in the preparatory document dated August 17, 2018 seems to mean that the above confession is revoked, but the number of evidence Nos. 6 and 7 is the number.