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. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows 2. In addition to adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As seen earlier, Article 6 of the Agreement provides that the Defendant is not obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff in the event that the Defendant was unable to receive the contract term from C&C, the ordering person.

The Defendant was awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 14.9 billion from SP, and the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 469,034,50 with the Defendant, or was paid a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 469,034,50 by the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or was able to comprehensively consider the evidence presented as evidence No. 13

In light of the fact that the construction cost of the subcontracted construction works received by the Plaintiff is merely about 3% of the construction cost of the instant construction works contracted by the Defendant, and that the instant agreement was made with respect to the subcontracted construction works executed by the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant did not receive even some of the entire construction cost of the instant construction works, but rather, that it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant did not receive the construction cost corresponding to the subcontract construction works performed by the Plaintiff. Article 6 of the instant agreement provides for the reasons why the Defendant is exempted from the responsibility to pay, and that the burden of proof as to such reasons is borne by the Defendant asserting this.

However, according to the above evidence, the agreement of this case was drafted around September 2014.