1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following additional determinations, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) is not that of B, but that of individual E who is the actual operator of B, and that of B, the Plaintiff is not entitled to subcontract H construction to the Plaintiff, and thus the subcontract for H construction concluded between the Plaintiff and B is invalid as a false declaration of agreement with the Plaintiff.

(2) Therefore, among the construction price received by the Plaintiff from B, KRW 90 million or KRW 55 million (excluding KRW 44 million received from B corresponding to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff at KRW 99 million) shall not be appropriated for the H construction cost claim, which is a non-existent bond, and shall be appropriated for the instant claim for the construction cost.

(3) Thus, the above KRW 99 million or KRW 55 million should be excluded from the unpaid amount of the construction payment of this case at the time of the preparation of the letter of rejection of the payment of this case, but the Plaintiff and B included the above KRW 9 million or KRW 55 million in the unpaid amount of the construction payment of this case, and the preparation of the letter of rejection of the payment of this case constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy with the Plaintiff and B, and thus, is null and void.

Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay the construction cost under the payment note of this case, or is liable to pay only the amount calculated by subtracting 5 million won from that of the payment note of this case.

(The defendant's assertion is not clear, but the time when the plaintiff receives KRW 99 million from B is prior to the preparation of the letter of payment in this case, so it is prior to the aforementioned preparation).

Judgment

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of the evidence Nos. 11 through 14 (including the number of branches), the fact that the contractor on the building ledger entered the building ledger as K, the owner of the building, and B issued the tax invoice to K.