The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

purport, purport, and.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the cases where additional judgments are added as stated in paragraph (2) as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes as the reason for appeal in the court of appeal, and therefore, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and Defendant D entered into the instant construction contract orally through the J of the Field Director of the Construction Work, and agreed to the construction cost of KRW 150,283,97 with the direct labor cost of KRW 220,000,000,000 including the expenses for indirect labor, insurance premium, etc., and the general management cost. The instant construction cost was agreed to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price (270,000,000) in lieu of the difference between the sale price (50,000,000) and the sale price (50,000,000). As such, Defendant D is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost, other than the direct labor cost, to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following circumstances revealed in the instant argument, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as having concluded a contract for construction as alleged by the Plaintiff and Defendant D, and no other evidence exists.

1) The Plaintiff and Defendant D cannot be deemed as evidence, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the real estate sales contract (Evidence A No. 12) is not prepared as a contract for the instant construction project or for an arrangement for payment in kind with regard thereto.

[2] Even according to the Plaintiff’s statement, the Plaintiff trusted the oral agreement with the head of the field office to make payment of the instant construction cost of KRW 270 million as the instant real estate in accord with the Plaintiff.