1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as is in accordance with the main

[A evidence Nos. 2 through 9 (Evidence No. 7) submitted by the plaintiff in this Court shall include the number; hereinafter the same shall apply

(3) The lower court’s determination and determination are justifiable on the ground that each of the statements in this Court or witness G and F’s testimony was presented to the witness G and F. On the other hand, the Plaintiff directly paid KRW 62,945,00 to the pertinent enterprise as transportation and installation costs and material costs, etc. Of the sculptures in this case, the Defendant appears to have asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff should pay the amount corresponding to the above amount since the Plaintiff paid the actual transportation and installation costs and material costs, etc., other than the aforementioned 16 points out of the sculptures in this case (the Plaintiff’s assertion also does not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to bear the aforementioned amount, and there is no reason to believe that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed to bear

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 2, the defendant would be deemed to bear the costs of transport and installation on the 20 point of the instant sculptures. However, if the plaintiff actually disbursed the costs of transport and installation and material costs, etc. on the remaining 16 points, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above only the statement in the evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 9, and the testimony by the witness F of the court of this case as to how the details or amount would be the details or amount, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of evidence Nos. 10 and 11, around February 15, 2012, the Defendant concluded a new comprehensive development company and D Park creation and facility maintenance construction contract in C, a company, with KRW 791,645,800 of the contract amount. The contract details include KRW 7,296,072 of the cost of “the installation of e-mailed sculptures” and KRW 121,483,70 of the cost of “the installation of e-mailed sculptures” in the above contract contents. Thus, the Defendant’s instant case before December 2010.