1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and Defendant C and the claims filed by the independent party Intervenor are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim in the instant case by the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons: “(i) a notary public with respect to Defendant C, on January 11, 2012, based on an executory copy of a notarial deed prepared by 563, 201, by a notary public with respect to Defendant C, on January 11, 2012, issued a seizure and collection order with respect to KRW 1.242,40,000,00 among the construction cost and service cost claims related to the hospital termination construction in the instant case against Defendant C, as Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch of the Busan District Court, 2012T, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.” The above seizure and collection order was served on the Plaintiff on January 16, 2012.”

2. Judgment on the Intervenor’s claim

A. The Intervenor’s assertion (1) The party who entered into a contract for the service contract with the Plaintiff on the hospital termination work, etc. of this case is Defendant C, not the Defendant Company, and the above termination work, etc. was completed, and the original copy of the above seizure and collection order was served on the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Intervenor the collection amount of KRW 1.24 billion and the damages for delay.

② The contract for the service that the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company entered into retroactively as of October 8, 2010 on and after the early December 201, constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy and thus invalid, as it is aimed at evading the debt collection of the Intervenor, etc., who is the creditor of the Defendant C.

③ Even if the Defendant Company is a party to the agreement on the service contract for the instant hospital termination work, in light of the fact that the said agreement was entirely concluded by Defendant C without involvement of H, the representative director of the Defendant Company, and that Defendant C, not H, actually operated by Defendant C, and that the money transferred by the Plaintiff to H and the Defendant Company’s account was used according to Defendant C’s intent, the Defendant Company is merely an individual company of Defendant C or to Defendant C.