1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows additional evidence.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants had been directly performing the instant construction work after acquiring the authority to do so from the Plaintiff. However, the circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) both J and L engaged in the instant construction work and design work related to the instant construction work in addition to the testimony of witnesses of the court of first instance and the overall purport of the testimony and pleadings by the witness J of the court of first instance; (b) the Defendants, real estate real estate agents, introduced construction business operators to the Plaintiff who were land owners and provided assistance in the process of the construction work; and (c) there seems to be no reasonable ground for the Defendants to directly perform the instant construction work after obtaining the instant construction authority from the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff is equivalent to approximately KRW 5,00,000,000,000, which are the difference between the construction cost paid by the Plaintiff during the instant construction work process and the construction cost actually paid by the Plaintiff, and thus, there is no evidence to support that the Defendants obtained profits from the Defendants

The Plaintiff appears to have suffered damage to some extent due to the change of entry route in the construction process of the instant case, taking into account the fact that it appears to have been caused by the direction of the competent administrative authority, and that the entry route is not changed by the intent of the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff.