1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 15, 2016, A (mutual name: D) and the Defendant: (a) supplied construction services and materials at the construction site of the building site and the multi-family house in the subordinate E zone neighborhood living facilities and the multi-family house construction site; and (b) written an agreement on the supply of construction services and materials that the Defendant shall pay the construction cost of KRW 95 million (from the following to the “instant agreement”; and (c) drafted the said construction contract as the “instant construction contract”).

F has affixed a seal to the contract of this case as a guarantor of A.

B. The construction project under the instant construction contract was completed around August 2016.

C. A received KRW 70,722,00 from the Defendant as payment for the instant construction work, and KRW 17,646,00 from G (hereinafter “G”) and collected KRW 5,459,142 from the Defendant’s deposit account on July 11, 2018.

A was declared bankrupt on January 25, 2019, and B was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee on the same day, and taken over the instant lawsuit on February 18, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12, the whole purport of oral argument

2. Determination as to the defendant's obligation to pay construction price

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount payable to the plaintiff 9,019,676 won of the construction cost under the instant construction contract and the delay damages.

The defendant asserts that the actual party (subcontractor) of the instant construction contract is F rather than A, and that the contractor was changed from the Defendant to G upon the request of the owner of the building during the construction process, and the instant construction contract was rescinded by agreement and a new construction contract was concluded between A and G. Therefore, the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the construction cost of this case to the

B. (1) First, we examine who is the subcontractor of the instant construction contract.

If a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court is clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement.