1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the judgment of the court of first instance and addition of the determination of a new argument, such as Paragraph 2, and thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of

No. 17-18 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Plaintiff voluntarily affixed the seal of the Defendant to the instant direct payment agreement.” The written statement No. 30, 31, and 40 of the written statement No. 30 of the written statement No. 30, 31, and 40 of the written statement No. 17-18 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The fact that N of the on-site Director affixes the

Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be deleted from Part 8 "A and".

No. 15-16 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written in the form of “documents, and there is no legal responsibility for the defendant.”

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff would not conclude the subcontract of this case unless the direct payment agreement is reached, and the plaintiff, defendant, and C reached a direct payment agreement.

B. However, according to the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 10, 35, and 45, the Plaintiff received most of the construction cost from the Defendant and C, except for the payment of part of the construction cost directly by the Defendant, in accordance with the subcontract price payment agreement entered into between the Defendant and C on December 30, 2016. In entering the subcontract price ledger into KIKO, the Plaintiff was found to be “not” in the item of the “direct payment agreement between the ordering person.” In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 23 as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion is not believed, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the direct payment agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C was the premise or condition for the conclusion of the instant subcontract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3.