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 Plaintiff asserted that, around October 2015, the building located in the Suwon-si District C, which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) was supplied by the Defendant and constructed by the Plaintiff.

The defendant is not obliged to pay the construction cost of KRW 10,920,000 up to now.

2. Generally, who is the party to a contract is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009); in light of the following facts that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of witness D’s testimony in the descriptions of evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 208Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009; and any estimate or construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not prepared, the party entering into the contract with the Plaintiff is D.

The defendant's representative E introduced D from the architectural designer of the building of this case, and had D take charge of the construction of extension of the second floor of the building of this case.

B. D Prior to October 1, 2014, D calculated the construction cost and the construction cost anticipated in the future and gave written estimates to E.

(1) The written estimate shall include (1) the total construction cost: 157,00,000 won, (2) the direct labor cost of KRW 58,262,00, and (3) the total amount of internal construction cost of KRW 11,014,00,00.

C. D had the Plaintiff take charge of the interior construction of the instant building.

D paid 86,00,000 won to other construction personnel who invested 86,00,000 won from the Defendant, but the Plaintiff did not receive the internal construction cost of this case from D.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff drafted a written estimate for the interior construction of the instant building, and the written estimate is written as KRW 10,920,000 in total amount of the construction work.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is the same.