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: (a) the first instance court’s explanation on the instant case shall use the following: (b) the last 5th instance judgment; and (c) the following explanation is added to the Defendant’s assertion under the first instance judgment; and (d) the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the first instance judgment; and (e) the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts and the evidence examined above, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the remainder of the construction cost, excluding KRW 33 million, to the non-party company. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. 3. In addition, the Defendant did not prepare the above confirmation document in his/her name, and the Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on April 21, 2017 with the content certification attached thereto, and it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of being sent to the Defendant cannot be ruled out. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not file a criminal complaint against the non-party company, i.e., the non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party-party company’s non-party-party company’s non-party-party-party company’s non-party-party-party company’s non-party-party-party company’s non-party-party-party company’s non-party-party-party company’s non-party-party-party-party-party company’s complaint.

4. Additional determination

A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion has paid all the construction price of this case to the non-party company, but thereafter J and G have been contracted to the non-party company.