1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. From October 27, 2014, the Defendant damaged the depreciation lines located therein while entering into the process of performing the said C construction by being awarded a contract for the said C construction by LS Electric Co., Ltd.

B. Accordingly, ELS Electric Co., Ltd requested the Defendant to restore the depreciation line damaged to the Defendant, the Defendant requested the introduction of a specialized restoration company, and the ELS Electric Co., Ltd introduced the Plaintiff operating D’s “D” to the Defendant.

C. On February 2015, the Plaintiff, while carrying out the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant construction”), issued a quotation for the instant construction project to LS Electric Co., Ltd. (the estimate amounting to KRW 11.8 million and value added tax separately), and LS Electric Co., Ltd. delivered the said quotation to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff completed the construction of this case.

[Judgment of the court below] The facts that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, witness E's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the construction of this case was contracted by the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 11.8 million and the delay damages for the construction of this case.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that the instant construction is not possible to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, since ELS Electric Co., Ltd. gave contract to the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the issues of the instant case are who are the parties to the instant contract with the Plaintiff regarding the instant construction work.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers), and the overall purport of testimony and arguments by witnesses E and F, it is reasonable to view that the parties to the contract with the Plaintiff regarding the instant construction work are the defendants.

1. The plaintiff holds the defendant's business registration certificate.