1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 2008, Defendant B (name C before the opening of a name: the Plaintiff is the contractor, and the said Defendant’s owner is the owner of the building and contracts for construction of a neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant new building”) on E-ground (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the construction cost of KRW 635,00,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the remainder, excluding the sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment, excluding the sum of KRW 300,000,00, was affixed on the standard construction contract (No. 2-1, No. 4-1, No. 4-1, hereinafter “the first contract of this case”).

B. Defendant D is the contractor around that time, and the above Defendant D is the owner of the building.

The standard contract for construction work (A No. 2-2, hereinafter referred to as “instant secondary contract”) with the same content as that of the same paragraph was sealed.

C. The F died on November 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff is the child of the net F (hereinafter “the deceased”) and Defendant D is the owner of the said land as his father and wife.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On March 14, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted 1 of the parties concerned entered into a construction contract with Defendant B for the construction work of this case at KRW 635,00,000,000, except for the remainder of KRW 300,000,000 in total the down payment and the intermediate payment. The said Defendant leased the new building of this case to a third party, thereby being paid a security deposit from the lessee.

However, at the request of Defendant B, it is inevitable for Defendant B to prepare a new contract form with the name of the owner as Defendant D, and the Plaintiff was absent, and thus, the Plaintiff’s father’s name was written in the column of the contractor of the contract form prepared by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is concluded with Defendant D.