The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the selective claims added by this court are all dismissed.

An appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's appellate brief in paragraph 2. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The portion to be removed or added shall be referred to as “7 through 10, 12 through 14” in the 14th trial of the fifth instance judgment.

"The results of factual inquiries into the head of the Dong of the court of first instance with the head of the Dong" in front of the purport of the entire argument of the 15th trial of the fifth instance judgment.

Each "WitnessJ" of the 7th 5 conduct, 8th 5 conduct, 10th 14 conduct, and 14th 10th J to "J of the first instance trial witness."

The 8th Judgment of the first instance court "H" of the 18th Ha means "N".

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the party to the design service contract of this case is G, the Deceased agreed to pay the service cost of this case to the Plaintiff, or at least he/she concurrently assumed the non-performance of G’s service costs.

B. As recognized by the court of first instance, in light of the following: (a) the process of consultation for the conclusion of the instant design service contract; (b) the motive and background of the conclusion of the contract; and (c) the content of the instant design service contract; and (b) the content of the instant design service contract, in particular, the instant design service contract merely appears to be a person who is a party to the instant design service contract, to have the duty to pay the service cost under the instant contract; (b) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, alone, entered into an agreement with the deceased to pay the service cost in addition to the instant design service contract; or (c) the deceased jointly acquired G’s obligation to pay the service cost.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B and each conjunctive claim against the defendant C and D.