1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

On July 25, 2014, a contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to perform the business of disposing of neglected waste of the Gansan Factory (including value-added tax) under the agreement on September 30, 2014 with the contract amount of KRW 1,419,00,000 (including value-added tax) and the final payment date on September 31, 2014; hereinafter “the instant plant” was left unattended for a long time after its operation; hereinafter “the instant plant”). The agreement was concluded to enter into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 25, 2014 on the contract to perform the business of disposing of neglected waste of the instant plant. The final payment date thereafter changed to October 31, 2014.

On July 30, 2014, this test entered into a subcontract with the Defendant by entering into an agreement with the contract amount of KRW 370,000,000 (value-added tax classification) and the construction period from July 30, 2014 to September 30, 2014 with respect to the cleaning machinery operation (hereinafter “instant service”).

On August 1, 2014, the Defendant concluded a sub-subcontract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Plaintiff by concluding an agreement between the contract price of KRW 170,000,000 (value-added tax) and the construction period of the instant service from July 30, 2014 to September 30, 2014.

In the course of the termination of the instant service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff appointed the case environment (hereinafter referred to as “case environment”) as a construction management agent, and performed the instant service under the instant service contract. The case environment, which represented the Plaintiff, gave up the instant service performance between the Defendant and the main test on September 6, 2014, and the Defendant given up the instant service performance, and directly entered into a contract with the main test, and performed the case and the environment, and the subsequent expenses were settled at the main test, and agreed to renegotiation the direction of the instant service performance on September 12, 2014.

1. The defendant's scope of service (1) machinery at the time of the single-dynamic test.