1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 2010, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction cost of C construction in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si B (excluding value-added tax) with the construction cost of KRW 4,046,30,000 (excluding value-added tax).

B. After that, between D and D on December 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to accept the instant construction cost of KRW 107,800,000 (including value-added tax) among the instant new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff commenced the instant construction work.

C. On the other hand, between D and D on February 7, 2012, DNA Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD Construction”) entered into a contract with the Defendant to accept the said new construction cost of KRW 66,00,000 (including value-added tax) from the Defendant to accept the said new construction cost, and followed the Plaintiff.

After that, DNA Construction filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the construction price for the said earth booming construction (the Changwon District Court 2012dan19812, hereinafter “relevant lawsuit”) and was sentenced to a favorable judgment in full by the said court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap's evidence 1 to 6, 12 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with D, the Defendant’s agent, and 40% of the progress of the process at the time of the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of the instant construction work. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 34,727,00 as the contract price for the construction of the instant case and the delay damages therefor. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant did not delegate any authority regarding the instant construction work including the right to conclude the instant construction contract to D, and the instant construction contract written by D under the Defendant’s name is forged, and thus, the Defendant is a party to the instant construction contract.