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 the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the parts to be cited or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was used or added, deleted the phrase “F and H, as the contractor of the instant construction, are only paid to the subcontractor of the instant construction, and not paid by the Plaintiff for the Defendant.” The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The Plaintiff paid 14 million won to F and waste disposal business operators H, which is not related to the instant construction work, and is the construction cost and the material price incurred from the “tax-free oil site” in which the Plaintiff himself was performing construction work.

After the 3rd written statement of the first instance judgment "F and H's testimony" in the 20th written statement of the 20th written statement, "F and H's testimony" are added.

The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is to add “The Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the value of supply recorded by the Plaintiff.”

In the fourth 20th 20th son of the judgment of the court of first instance, “H was entrusted with the disposal of wastes at the construction site of this case by I, who is the Defendant’s children, and there seems to be no fact that the Plaintiff disposed of wastes at the construction site of this case other than the construction site of this case. F was present at the trial as a witness and supplied a total amount of KRW 31 million at the construction site of this case, and was determined by usual construction consumption at the construction site of this case, the size of the construction site of this case is an appropriate amount to be disbursed in the size of the construction site of this case, and there was a fact that the Plaintiff supplied steel bars to the “watery field” of which the Plaintiff had been separately constructed, but the Plaintiff testified that it is distinguishable from two sites.”

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope recognized by the first instance court.