1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal by the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of first instance, and the fact-finding of the court of first instance is deemed legitimate in view of the whole

Therefore, this court's reasoning concerning this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for supplement of the following contents:

2. Details of supplement; and

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on the part of the claim related to the construction of the athletic field of this case is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired the amount equivalent to the labor cost of the false workers of this case by deceiving the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Rather, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, based on the circumstances indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence presented by the court of first instance, and based on the overall purport of evidence Nos. 17 and 18, the Defendant received personnel expenses from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff and used them as site expenses for the instant sports site construction, and the Plaintiff seems to have knowingly and explicitly accepted them.

① From February 26, 2014 to September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff directly paid KRW 945,757,473 to relevant persons for miscellaneous material costs and expenses (including food substitute oil expenses).

However, in light of the fact that the construction cost of the sports site of this case received by the first plaintiff reaches about 4.5 billion won, it seems that the expenses in addition to the expenses that the plaintiff did not pay directly as above are not clear as the basis for the nominal payment in the field.

② Accordingly, the Defendant, who is the construction manager, raised an issue to the Plaintiff with respect to the shortage of site expenses, and the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, has concealed the re-subcontract.