1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. As to this part of the basic facts, the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is entitled to pay the remainder of KRW 60 million, excluding the remainder of KRW 20 million paid as advance payment, out of KRW 80,160,000 for construction and production costs of the instant contract.

In regard to this, the defendant is only the representative of F, a corporation that has entered into a contract for the construction of Telecommunications and Newice with the defendant, who is not the defendant's working person or representative. Since the plaintiff entered into a contract with D, which is not the defendant, the defendant is not a party to the contract of this case, and the defendant is not liable to pay the price, and some of the sculptures have not been supplied, so the plaintiff's claim is alleged to be unfair, and it is claimed to claim

B. 1) Determination of the parties to the instant contract is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties involved in the instant contract.

Therefore, if both parties agree with each other in relation to the confirmation of the parties to the contract, the parties to the contract should be decided according to the agreement. If the parties fail to agree with each other, a reasonable person should be determined based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). (b) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the fact that the Plaintiff received advance payment 20 million won, which was remitted to the name of health care unit and the name of F that was not the Defendant, as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence employed earlier and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, namely, the fact that D around July 2014, which was at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, served as the defendant's DNA, and ② the plaintiff's contract of this case.