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. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff made a B model with the Defendant and received KRW 13.2 million (hereinafter “instant contract”).

)을 체결하였다. 피고는 2015. 9. 9. 원고에게 계약금 200만 원만을 지급하고, 나머지 대금을 지급하지 아니하였으므로, 피고는 원고에게 나머지 대금 1,120만 원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 2) 피고의 주장 피고는 첼시 농업회사법인 주식회사(이하 ‘첼시 주식회사’라고만 한다)의 요청에 따라 원고를 첼시 주식회사에 소개하였을 뿐, 원고와 계약을 체결한 사실이 없다.

The Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the Defendant is a party to the instant contract is unreasonable.

B. The question of who the party to the judgment contract is is the interpretation of the party involved.

Therefore, if both parties agree with each other in relation to the confirmation of the parties to the contract, the parties to the contract should be decided according to the agreement. If the parties fail to agree with each other, a reasonable person should be determined based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 Decided March 13, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3897 Decided May 29, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2013Da11959, June 27, 2013, etc.). As to the instant case, the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire descriptions of health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the entire arguments, namely, the deposit of the down payment under the Defendant’s name on September 9, 2015, ② the Plaintiff’s estimate for the production of model was presented to the Defendant; ③ the Defendant sent the final written estimate for the production of model to the Plaintiff on September 14, 2015.