1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Facts of recognition

On November 10, 2008, the Defendant concluded a subcontract by setting the construction amount of 624,80,000 won and the construction period from November 10, 2008 to August 31, 2010, among the construction works for the creation of Cheongyang-gun Culture Village within 14-1, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul, which was ordered by Cheongyang-do Construction Co., Ltd. by Cheongyang-do.

On June 30, 2009, the above contract changed the construction amount to KRW 402,490,000, and again, on July 13, 2010, the construction amount was changed to KRW 574,200,000, and the construction period was changed from November 10, 2008 to November 12, 2010.

On November 10, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a sub-subcontract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) from the Defendant to the inspection of CCTV and excellent pipes (hereinafter referred to as “sewage pipes”) and to the inspection fee of KRW 3,116,00 for the removal of earth and sand flowing into sewage pipes installed by the Defendant (i.e., a unit price of KRW 2,000 per meter x the length of sewage pipes 1,558m) and the dredging cost of KRW 26,00,000 for each dredging equipment (2,00,000 per day x 2 dredging equipment x 6.5 days).

From November 11, 2010 to November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff completed both the inspection of CCTV for sewage pipes and the dredging of sewage pipes in accordance with the instant contract.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 11, Eul testimony by the witness of the first instance trial, and the whole purport of the pleadings of the court of first instance, which led to the confession of the conclusion of the contract in this case, and the parties to the contract in this case were not the defendant but the parties to the contract in this case to the contract in the first instance trial, respectively, submitted a written statement of grounds for appeal No. 26, Dec. 26, 2014; Feb. 24, 2015; May 11, 2015; however, the written statements Nos. 2 and 3; and Eul evidence Nos. 9 through 11 were insufficient to acknowledge that the confession was contrary to the truth; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the confession is invalid.