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.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are used in part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. In addition to the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to "paragraph 3", the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) No. 10 of the judgment of the first instance court (No. 3-1 of the Act on Permission for Extension of the Period of Mountainous Districts (No. 3-1 of the Act) shall be written by adding to “written permission for extension of the period of Mountainous Districts (No. 3-2 of the Act)” the part

(b)Article 10 Section 19 of the judgment of the first instance shall be subject to the following parts:

【The Plaintiff cannot impose a burden (as to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that C is merely a “pest” made to avoid the Defendant’s legal responsibility, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that C constitutes a “pest” made to avoid the Defendant’s legal responsibility on the sole basis of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to this court and the circumstances of its assertion. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

9. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that an exchange contract concluded between the Defendant and C was created to avoid the Defendant’s legal obligation, and that the said exchange contract cannot be allowed as it constitutes an “evacing of the law” to circumvent the relevant provisions of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Subcontract Act, and that it is merely an “act” to avoid the legal responsibility of the Plaintiff with respect to the same construction company.

On the other hand, the term "evacing of the law" generally refers to the act that the party at disadvantage under the mandatory provisions intends to avoid the application of the mandatory provisions by changing the form of the contract.

However, in light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff up to this court.