All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”)’s employees M and H residing at the site and gave specific supervision and instructions, and directly bears necessary expenses for the said construction work.

Defendant

B did not subcontract to F the removal and civil engineering work contracted by D Co., Ltd.

2. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the above argument in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail by giving a detailed statement on the decision.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Article 25 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that "a contractor shall subcontract part of a contracted construction work to a constructor who has registered a type of business corresponding to the contents of construction work," and in light of the fact that a subcontractor is not a constructor who has registered a type of business corresponding to the contents of construction work, the subcontractor may be deemed to have violated the above obligation, and the subcontractor may give appropriate instructions and supervision to the contractor in order to obtain the result of the subcontractor's wishes, and the subcontractor may pay the subcontractor the subcontract price directly, even if the employees of Defendant B supervised and instructed

Even if it is true that Defendant B directly bears some of the costs, such fact alone does not interfere with the above recognition.

Therefore, the defendants' above assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.