beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the court of first instance excludes each description of evidence Nos. 5 through 10 (including any number number), which is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as evidence additionally submitted by this court, and 2. Additional decision as to the defendant's assertion added or emphasized by this court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s agent or the field manager of the instant construction was only the role of the Plaintiff’s agent or the construction site manager to supply and demand interior works to be undertaken after the instant construction work, but is not the contractor of the instant construction work.
The following facts are acknowledged based on the overall purport of evidence Nos. 27, 28, 31, 32, and 33 as follows: ① the contract document was prepared by the Defendant from the Plaintiff on January 13, 2016 that the Defendant receives KRW 1,030,00,000 from the Plaintiff; the contract document was prepared by the Defendant’s personal business chain AC and the contractor was attached to the work estimate as of January 12, 2016, ② the construction price was paid as of February 17, 2016 as of February 17, 2016 without the Defendant’s relevant construction license; ③ the contract document was newly prepared as a joint contractor with the Defendant and the Defendant as of December 13, 2016; ③ the Defendant stated that the contract document was additionally written as of December 13, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant additionally stated that the construction price was paid from the Plaintiff’s joint contractor exceeding six billion won.