1. The defendant's appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The expenses of filing an application for the return of the provisional payment of the appeal cost.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the defendant’s additional argument, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that the construction contract of this case in this case is invalid as a conspiracy, false or bad faith mark.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the testimony of Gap evidence 1 or witness D of the trial court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant asserts that even if the construction contract in this case is valid, there was a hidden agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the owner (the defendant) shall pay the construction price directly to the subcontractor (the plaintiff) only if the principal contractor (the design corporation) is unable to pay the construction price.

However, if the objective meaning of the language and text is clear if the parties to a contract prepares the content of a contract in writing as a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, if the objective meaning of the language and text is clear, it shall be acknowledged as the existence of declaration of intent and its content as stated in the language and text, and if the objective meaning of the language and text is not clearly revealed, it shall comprehensively consider the motive and circumstance in which the contract was concluded, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties through the contract, transaction practices, etc., and shall reasonably interpret the content of the contract in accordance with logical and empirical rules and social common sense and transaction norms so as to comply with the ideology of social justice and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44368, Jun. 24, 2011). It is difficult to recognize that the Defendant, regardless of the fact that the Defendant, including the instant construction work, has contracted to a design corporation, there was any concealment agreement different from