1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 7,381,00 and its amount from December 25, 2013 to March 24, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

In fact, the defendant is "the removal of this case" and "the removal of this case" for the removal of 2 to 5 floors within the Seo-gu Daejeon District C Hospital.

A) Around November 2013, the Plaintiff received supply and demand. Around November 2013, the Plaintiff contracted the industrial waste treatment works among the removal works in this case, and completed the said works from November 25, 2013 to December 16, 2013. The Plaintiff received a work confirmation from the Defendant’s employees or the Defendant’s consent and confirmation. The Plaintiff signed the said work confirmation. On December 25, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 7,381,00 to the Defendant on December 31, 2013 at the Defendant’s request, and issued a revised tax invoice of cancellation of the same amount on December 31, 2013. Meanwhile, around December 12, 2013, the list of individual suppliers’ tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff included the “tax invoice” as grounds for recognition, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s claim for construction price as the Plaintiff’s entire claim against the Defendant’s reimbursement number.

On November 12, 2013, the Defendant subcontracted the removal of this case to D on November 12, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid sewage to the said industrial waste disposal works from D, thus, the Defendant cannot claim the construction cost against the Defendant.

However, the plaintiff argued that he received a request from the defendant's employee E for the above industrial waste treatment work, and that he introduced Eul. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff received a written confirmation of work under the name of the defendant during the work period. Not only D but also the defendant's employees signed as instructed and confirmed, and the plaintiff signed a tax invoice equivalent to the construction price to the defendant.