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. Basic facts

A. In Jeju City, among the interior interior interior interior interior te (hereinafter “D”) of D(hereinafter “D”) in D(hereinafter “instant construction”), the construction was intended to contract the construction to G operating F with respect to the first floor above ground and E with respect to the first floor below ground.

However, G is not required to obtain a construction license due to the absence of a construction license, only G is the design and design that are not required to obtain a construction license, and the interior construction project requiring a construction license was carried out by the defendant who has the construction license leading to the contractual relationship of G.

B. The multi-purpose Korea Co., Ltd., the head office of the store (hereinafter “ multi-purpose Korea”) concluded a household production contract with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the supply and construction of the household of the store (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. The Plaintiff completed the supply and construction of furnitures under the household production contract with the Multi-types Korea.

Multi-type 2 million won out of the household price of KRW 40 million was paid directly to the Plaintiff, and the remainder of KRW 18 million was promised to take measures so that they can receive from the D.

Accordingly, the Multi-type Korea paid to the Plaintiff money including the above KRW 22 million (including delay damages of KRW 22,000,000,000,000 including delay damages of KRW 23,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff issued tax invoices with the recipient of multi-type Korea) and D agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18,00,000.

Afterwards, D and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the above 18 million won to the Defendant who is in charge of the entire interior works instead of paying the Plaintiff directly to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff agreed to receive the said money from the Defendant.

Accordingly, on September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice with the supply price of KRW 18 million and tax amount of KRW 18 million as the recipient of the Defendant.

E. D paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant with respect to the instant construction work, and the Defendant on October 7, 2015.