1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2014, the Defendant changed the construction price of KRW 1.339 billion from the Dong Mine Construction Co., Ltd. to KRW 1.357 billion on September 4, 2014.

(Inclusion of value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the period of construction shall be determined from May 30, 2014 to December 31, 2014 and received contracts.

B. At the site of the instant construction site, D, who is the head of the Defendant’s field management team, possesses a name of the same or similar pattern as that used by the Defendant’s officers and employees (the name, location, telephone number, and name of D, etc. of the Defendant are inscribed, but the title is not indicated) and was permanently stationed in the construction site, and subcontracted the instant construction project by field or process, and requested the luminous Construction Co., Ltd. in the Defendant’s name.

C. From July 1, 2014 to December 9, 2014, the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 410 million to D’s account. D.

The Plaintiff, from October 25, 2014 to November 16, 2014, performed the instant construction site of this case in an amount equivalent to KRW 11,275,000 (hereinafter “instant services”).

E. On December 10, 2014, KRW 4,000,000 was transferred from the accounts under the above Section D’s above Section as part of the instant service payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 4-19, Eul evidence 2, 5, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is liable for the price of the service of this case as follows. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the remaining KRW 7,275,000 (= KRW 11,275,000 - KRW 4,000) and damages for delay after subtracting the amount of KRW 4,00,000 received by the plaintiff as referred to in paragraph 1's E.

The primary argument is that the plaintiff was requested by D, which was the head of the on-site management team of the defendant at the time, to provide the service of this case.