1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 7,700,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from February 11, 2012 to November 15, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of dismantling non-system structures, dismantling and removing asbestos.

C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was dissolved on September 4, 2012 to a limited liability company established for the purpose of engineering work, etc., and the limited liability company B dissolved on November 14, 2013 to a A Co., Ltd. (where it is not necessary to distinguish between the defendant and the limited liability company, both C, LLC and A were referred to as “Defendant”).

B. On January 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant, setting the contract price of KRW 7,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the contract period from January 16, 2012 to February 10, 2012 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with respect to the project to improve the residential environment in the zone (hereinafter “instant project”), and entered into the said entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. After completing the instant construction, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice consisting of the total amount of KRW 6,600,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the total of KRW 1,100,000 on June 13, 2012 to the Defendant on May 16, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 7,700,000 (including value-added tax) and the damages for delay from February 11, 2012, which is the day following the expiration date of the construction period, pursuant to the instant construction contract.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant subcontracted the construction work of the instant project to E, and the instant construction contract was concluded under the Defendant’s name using the Defendant’s seal kept by the E employee at the time of business relations, and thus, the instant construction contract is null and void.