1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff Company A ordering payment is revoked.

Defendant D Union.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case as described below (2). Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff C and the Defendant D Union are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment on the relevant portion of the first instance court are deemed legitimate, considering the evidence submitted to this court, considering the evidence presented to this court). The portion of the appeal to be accepted is as follows: (a) from 8th to 9th 11th e.g., 17th e., the part

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and evidence stated in Gap's evidence and evidence Nos. 22 and 27 (including all the serial numbers), it is reasonable to view that "F paid 111,622,500 won to plaintiff A on December 9, 2016, to be related to soil works during the instant improvement project (the second portion), as labor cost for the plaintiff A on October 2016. Therefore, this part of the defendant association's assertion is without merit. ① The plaintiff filed a claim for construction cost under the name of "F on October 1, 2016," and "F from the Korea Environment Corporation, which approved its content on October 1, 2016, it received the progress payment corresponding to the labor cost on October 20, 2016 from the Korea Environment Corporation, which was the owner of the order, and then paid the above labor cost to the plaintiff A on December 16, 2016, which had not been paid to the plaintiff A and the same worker on December 16, 2016.