1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. Even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the trial court are examined, the findings of fact and judgment in the first instance court are recognized as legitimate.

B. Therefore, the reasons for the entry in this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff added in the trial at the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) even if the right to claim for the price based on the construction contract against the Defendant of the non-party company is not recognized, the non-party company did so under the direction of the Defendant; (b) so, the Defendant is obligated to reimburse the amount equivalent to the cost invested by the non-party company from November 2013 to January 2014; and (c) therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant collection amount to

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 15-1, witness G of the first instance court, and witness K of the trial court, the non-party company actually performed part of the contracted construction. However, according to the whole entries and arguments in Gap evidence 15-3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 12, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (i) the non-party company failed to complete the contracted construction; (ii) the defendant did not have received a written confirmation of completion of construction or a tax invoice from the non-party company; (iii) the non-party company requested the defendant to make a comprehensive settlement of the construction price unpaid to the defendant on June 16, 2015; and (v) the defendant requested the non-party company to pay the total amount of KRW 25,00,000 to the non-party company on June 19, 2015; and (v) the defendant made a request for the seizure and collection order to the non-party company on June 19, 2015.