The judgment below

The part of the main claim and that of the counterclaim against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The court shall decide whether a factual assertion is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the results of the examination of evidence, based on the principle of social justice and equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact that the judgment of the court below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thus duly confirmed by

(1) Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, need not be linked to the formal and legal rules of evidence, and does not allow a judge’s arbitrary judgment.” Thus, the fact finding should be in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the principle of justice and equity based on the admissibility of evidence, which has gone through legitimate evidence examination procedures, and even if the fact finding falls under the discretion of the fact-finding court, the scope thereof should not be exceeded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da7198, 77204, Apr. 13, 2012). 2. The lower court determined to the following purport on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The H Remodeling Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below is the actual subject of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is related to lending the name. As such, the costs incurred in relation to the instant construction are borne by the Plaintiff, and the value-added tax amounting to 1.5 billion won (hereinafter “value-added tax”) paid in the name of the Defendant is also the same.

B. The Plaintiff deposited expenses for the instant construction in the Defendant’s name and deposited money from the Defendant’s deposit account, thereby withdrawing the money or remitting it to the subcontractor.