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 judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant adds the same judgment as that of the following 2. Additional Judgment on the matters claimed additionally in the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is based on the premise that the direct payment agreement between the contractor and the subcontractor or between the subcontractor and the subcontractor exists, or between the subcontractor and the subcontractor, etc. In light of the form of this case, C Company (representative D) which is the subcontractor in this case merely entered into a contract for construction with G which is the contractor in this case and the Defendant, the contractor in this case, merely lent the name to C Company, and thus, C Company did not actually hold the Defendant’s claim for the construction price. Thus, C Company cannot establish a three-party direct payment agreement between the Defendant and C Company (Defendant) on the premise that there is a claim for the construction price between the contractor (contractor) and the subcontractor (C Company).

② The meaning of “the Defendant consents to the direct payment of the price for the materials” stipulated in the Materials Price Direct Payment Agreement refers to “the Defendant would directly pay the said price to the Plaintiff without going through a C company” under the condition that “the Defendant would receive the said price for the materials from G, the contractor,” and thus, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the said price for the materials to the Plaintiff unless there is any material price received from G

B. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that some of the testimony of F in determining the above argument is merely a name titleholder, and there is no other evidence.

Even if the Defendant is merely the nominal lender, the obligation to pay the Plaintiff to the Defendant under a separate agreement, such as the content of the material price direct payment agreement, has occurred.