The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The undertaking of an overlapping obligation by agreement with the debtor and the underwriter is a sort of contract for a third party.

As long as a overlapping contract is in force, a creditor, who has a contractual obligation, shall acquire a claim against an underwriter by demanding the acceptor to perform his/her obligation or by expressing his/her intent to make a profit by exercising his/her right as a creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu2443, Apr. 25, 1989; 201Da56033, Sept. 13, 2013). 2.

For the following reasons, the lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the Defendant’s overlapping acceptance of the Defendant’s obligation for construction cost.

The Defendant stated that the Defendant will accept the payment obligation of E pertaining to the instant construction work, which was made until May 31, 2010, in the MOU of this case.

The defendant expressed his intention to pay the amount of construction cost that E should pay to the plaintiff upon confirmation.

In addition, taking into account the circumstances leading up to the establishment of the Defendant, the status of the owner of the building, the process until the Defendant transferred the ownership of the new building site and completed the construction, the relationship between E and the Defendant, etc., it can be deemed that the Defendant agreed to take over the obligation to pay the construction price

In addition, since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case and expressed his/her intent to make profits, the defendant is obligated to perform the obligation to pay the construction price of E.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assumption of overlapping obligation, omitting judgment, etc.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.