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, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, concerning this case, is that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2.3 2.0 Ga, as follows:

The judgment on the cause of a claim shall be made as follows, and the defendant shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same in addition to the judgment on the argument added by this court.

2. The part to be dried (1. Basic Facts);

E. F was convicted of a crime that, even if the contract was entered into with the Defendant for the remaining portion of the instant construction project and the payment was made in advance, by deceiving the Defendant’s employees to pay the existing construction cost or to use it individually without any intention or ability to complete the remaining construction work, and by deceiving the Defendant’s employees as a total of KRW 232,356,50,00 in the name of the remainder of the construction project (the Government District Court of the first instance was 2017Da5377, 2018 Godan206, 206 (Joint), the Government District Court of the second instance was 2018No2346, 2398 (Joint)).

(F) The appeal was filed against the second instance judgment, and the appeal was withdrawn. [Judgment on the cause of the claim] According to the above facts acknowledged in the above basic facts, when the construction work performed by C, the first contractor of the instant construction work, was interrupted due to the failure to pay the construction cost to sewage suppliers, including the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with F on or around March 2017 for the resumption of the construction work, while the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff, who had been a human resources supplier, with F after the completion of the construction of the building when the payment of the labor cost of KRW 83 million was not made. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, agreed to pay the Plaintiff, who did not receive labor cost from F on the basis of the instant promise, and as requested by the Plaintiff, on the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff.