1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The court's reasoning concerning this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

This court's reasoning concerning this part of the party's assertion as to a claim for construction cost is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

Facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) the evidence and evidence set forth above are set forth in the evidence set forth in No. 4-1 to 6; (c) No. 7 and 9; and (d) some testimony set forth in No. 1

(1) The removal of Kazakhstan may be conducted by a local subsidiary holding a construction license in Kazakhstan.

Therefore, the plaintiff has to carry out the construction of this case through the local subsidiary holding a construction license in Kazakhstan.

[Attachment, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on the premise of the establishment of a local subsidiary at the time of the preceding contract, agreed to bear the Plaintiff’s expenses for the establishment and operation of the local subsidiary. Article 7(3) of the Evidence No. 1-7 (Matters to be confirmed at the time of the contract for removal construction). However, there was a need to perform the instant construction work and other necessary affairs through the local subsidiary already established.

② JHEus is a local subsidiary with a construction license in Kazastan and a company that allows companies that received local payments from the Defendant to perform construction works in Kazastan.

The Plaintiff continued to perform the instant construction even after the conclusion of the following contract between JHusus and the Defendant’s local subsidiary and the Habi Dok Dok Dok-do.

The construction cost of the instant construction project was paid to JHus in full in accordance with the future agreement by HHusstan, and JHuss, part of which was paid to the Plaintiff.