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

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal shall be considered in the trial.

1. We affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court by examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as well as the evidence added in the first instance court compared with the plaintiff's grounds for appeal, even though it is sufficiently acceptable to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the judgment as stated in Paragraph (2) with respect to the preliminary claim added by the court of the first instance, and this court's reasoning is the same as the stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Plaintiff] The Defendant directly paid KRW 48.68 million to the subcontractor and KRW 50 million for the instant construction contract amount, and ordered H&A to pay KRW 110 million, which is part of the construction price payable to the Plaintiff, in the name of the Defendant individual, and received the tax invoice accordingly under the name of the Defendant individual. As such, the Defendant repeated his assertion that the Defendant was either a party to the instant contract, or a party to D’s obligation to pay the construction price. However, the evidence, including the evidence No. 7 (Verification of Facts), which was submitted additionally at the trial, submitted by the Plaintiff, was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was either a party to the instant contract, or that the Plaintiff acquired or succeeded to the obligation to pay the construction price of KRW 50 million, and there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge otherwise).

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant would pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff on the ground of D without molding it, the Plaintiff’s deception by deceiving the Plaintiff, and that it constitutes a tort by deceiving the Plaintiff, such as the purport of the claim, and that it constitutes a tort, the Defendant should pay the amount of the construction payment due to the compensation for the damage.

However, in light of the contents of the contract of this case, the contractor of the model house construction is not the defendant but D.