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 of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added or emphasized the argument that the court added or emphasized this case, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. On March 14, 2016, the Defendant asserts that the non-party company agreed on the part of the construction of the instant building between the non-party company and the non-party company on March 14, 2016, and that the non-party company’s “the non-party company would be subject to the condition that the non-party company would pay all of the subcontract costs from the non-party company before the date of other agreement.” Thus, the construction cost up to March 14, 2016, which is the date of other agreement, should be paid by the non-party company, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay

According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the non-party company prepared and delivered a letter of waiver of construction around March 14, 2016, stating the purport as alleged by the defendant, to the defendant around March 14, 2016. However, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff, the subcontractor, consented to the contents of the said letter of waiver of construction, or that the plaintiff continued the construction of this case under the condition that he was issued a letter of waiver of construction, or he was aware

Thus, as seen earlier, as long as the Defendant directly operated the new construction of the building of this case and ordered the Plaintiff to continue to perform the construction work of this case through its site agent E and F, the Defendant is liable to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff, and it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff on the ground of an agreement on the subcontract cost with the Nonparty Company.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s determination as to the assertion regarding additional construction costs is as follows: KRW 79,094,114 out of the additional construction costs recognized by the first instance court; and