1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning the main claim is as follows: "128,605,600 won" in the second two acts of the court of first instance, 3, 128,600 won and "128,605,600 won" in the fourth two acts of the court of first instance, and the fourth one act of expression as "Apparent agency" and "direct payment" in the same side 21 acts," respectively. The plaintiff's non-authorized agency assertion that "the plaintiff confirmed the act of unauthorized agency of D by calculating and paying the price higher than the agreed unit price," and therefore, the defendant's partial payment of the construction price was made for smooth progress, regardless of the statement in the confirmation document of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance, except adding the judgment that "no longer needs to be examined without any further reason," and it is cited as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the conjunctive claim

A. In regard to the addition of employer's liability pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act to the plaintiff's conjunctive judgment on the defense of this safety, the defendant asserts that the addition of the claim to the appellate court for the first time is unlawful as it is the means of attack and defense against the actual time limit.

However, the object of rejection of the means of attack and defense is based on the means of attack and defense, that is, the allegations, disputes, defenses, and evidence methods, and the addition of claims is not the subject of rejection as they constitute the motion on the merits.

In particular, in the case of this case, the plaintiff added the claim for damages based on the conjunctive employer liability at the trial.

The addition of such claims shall also be made.