1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a collaborative company of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) in charge of the pre-service of the ship, and the Defendant is a collaborative company of C in charge of the post-service of the ship.

The design work is to install structures, such as equipment, parts, pipes, etc. excluding hulls, and the preceding design work refers to the work of installing such structures in advance for the block unit of the hulls, and the follow-up design work refers to the work of installing structures after the hull is completed after the block, etc. is assembled.

B. The Defendant, upon receiving a contract for the construction of a sea tank with respect to D vessels built by C, performed part of the work until June 10, 2016, but did not complete. From June 13, 2016, the Defendant was unable to complete the work.

6. By December 28, 200, workers employed by the Plaintiff were put into work and the remaining process was completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5-3, witness E, F, and G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion completed the process of this case by inserting 2,363m/h upon the defendant's request for support. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff expenses of KRW 38,500,359 (=2,363m/h x 16,293 per 1m/h unit price) and natural damages therefrom.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant’s instant process contracted by C was put into the Plaintiff’s workers and completed.

However, the Plaintiff was re-subcontracted by the Defendant solely based on the statement of the evidence No. 7 (E) certificate.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to carry out the instant process and to receive the settlement of expenses from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the testimony of the witness E of the first instance trial, the plaintiff(E team leader) and the defendant's site manager.