1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff operated a mid-term rental business under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant, from November 2009, performed the construction of a new house on the D ground of Ansan-si from around November 2009 (hereinafter “Kandong Housing Construction Corporation”).

B. On November 23, 2009, at the request of the head of the field office appointed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the part of the mid-term equipment construction, landscaping construction, and residual planting construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the inner-dong detached housing construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) and completed the said construction from that time until July 12, 2010.

C. The construction cost of this case is 14,170,000 won in total (6,770,000 won in total for heavy equipment construction + 7,000,000 for landscaping construction + 400,000 won in total. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received 3,00,000 won out of the above construction cost from E.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 4, 6 and each entry of Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 5 and 6, the testimony of the witness E at the trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 11,700,000 ( KRW 14,170,000-3,000) and the delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts that E performed a detached house construction work, and he merely introduced E to F, the owner of the building, and that he does not have any obligation to pay the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff.

However, as shown by the Defendant’s assertion, the entry of No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2 was written between the owner F and E, and the owner F and E.

In light of the fact that there is no data to be found or sufficient to be submitted, and the relationship between the owner F and E, it is difficult to see that the owner F did not prepare a contract for the construction work and the owner F and E, and it is difficult to see that the owner F had been entrusted with the construction work, and the defendant, who is the constructor, was not directly entrusted with the construction work of the building and the owner E.