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. Case summary

A. On April 15, 2012, the Defendant, as the owner of the building, contracted the construction of the E Hospital Villas located in Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant villa”) (hereinafter “instant construction”). On March 20, 2013, the fact that the approval for the use of the instant villa was obtained on March 20, 2013 does not conflict between the parties, or that it is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in the statement No. 24.

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the contractor of the instant construction project is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not actually perform the instant construction project.

2. The contractor and scope of the instant construction

A. In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 9 through 16, the testimony of witness B of the first instance court, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser C of the first instance court, the following facts are recognized and conform to the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) On April 15, 2012, including the preparation of the instant construction contract and partial payment, the Defendant prepared a written contract for the instant construction project, specifying the contractor (contractor) as the Plaintiff, and specifying the construction cost as KRW 1,397,00,000 (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant contract for the construction project”).

(2) From July 2, 2012 to March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the construction cost of KRW 1,00,547,800 in total to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff dispatched B to the site manager to perform the overall management and supervision of the instant construction work. (2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff completed the construction work by being awarded a contract from the Defendant for the entire construction of the instant separate hall, including the artificial complex construction, and the result of the establishment and appraisal of the claim against the Defendant in the first instance on the part of the artificial complex construction.) The Plaintiff asserted that the construction work of the instant separate hall, including the artificial complex construction, was completed by being awarded a contract from the Defendant, and the Defendant asserted in the first instance trial as follows. (1) The Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the contractor of the instant construction.