1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the third party of the judgment of the first instance, “Evidence Nos. 1 through 4,” and (b) the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is deemed as “Evidence Nos. 1 through 3,” and (c) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the first instance, except where the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is used as follows.

2. A part of the appeal (from the second to the last one in the judgment of the court of first instance);

A. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant, setting the construction cost of KRW 902,00,000 as the construction cost of the instant construction works and the completion date of the scheduled construction works of KRW 902,00,00 for the land-based and two lots of land-based neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contract for construction works was concluded on March 25, 2016 as the completion date of construction works, which became final and conclusive on April 30, 2016, and the completion date of construction works.

[Judgment of the court of first instance No. 14 to 5]

D. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 5 as to KRW 28,00,000 remitted to C, the fact that the Defendant remitted KRW 28,000,000 to C’s account designated by F which performed the instant construction as the Plaintiff’s employee, as the Plaintiff’s employee, KRW 3,00,000,000 on September 24, 2015, and KRW 10,000 on November 5, 2015, and KRW 12,00,000 on February 3, 2016, and KRW 3,000,000 on February 4, 2016, and KRW 28,000,000 on February 3, 20,000 (hereinafter “transfer to C”).

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by adding the purpose of the entire pleadings to the testimony of witnesses of the first instance court, witness D of the first instance court, and witness E of the first instance court, the above money has been remitted as the purpose of the construction cost of this case, since the defendant also remitted money to C as the object of the construction cost of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that it was remitted as the object of the construction cost of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.