1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts and the grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of the first 12 line as “the date of November 11, 2016,” the second 18 line of the judgment of the first instance as “by November 11, 2014,” the fourth 6 line as “other than the verification”, the fourth 10 line as “construction,” and the fourth 12 line as “construction,” and the fourth 12 line as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of the first 12 line as “the ceiling,” respectively, by virtue of the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the issue

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to undertake the instant construction with the approval of the Non-Party Foundation, taking into account the evidence and evidence Nos. 7, and the statements Nos. 11, 12, 20, and 24, as well as the overall purport of the testimony and arguments of the Non-Party Foundation G and H, it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to undertake the instant construction with the approval of the Non-Party Foundation.

1) As acknowledged earlier, among the special terms and conditions of the sales contract between the Defendant and the non-party foundation, “the Defendant shall consult in advance with the non-party foundation about the interior plan, and obtain approval from the non-party foundation.” As the construction period is short, it is highly likely that it would be difficult to complete the instant construction work if a bidding occurs due to approval from the non-party foundation during the construction period. Moreover, the above contract contents are very important because the Defendant would have known the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant construction contract, and the Defendant would have known the contract to the effect that the Defendant would consult with the non-party foundation while entering into the instant construction contract.”