Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and the cancellation shall be revoked.

1. The part accepting the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasons why this court should explain are the reasons for the amendment, except for the modification and addition as follows: (a) the 11 conduct of the judgment of the court of first instance on the 5th page of the judgment.

Inasmuch as the reasoning is the same as that stated to “the Civil Procedure Act,” this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

both Defendant B Limited Partnership Company, Defendant B’s “Defendant B”, “Defendant C Company,” and “Defendant C”, respectively, to “Defendant C Co., Ltd. in the first instance trial.”

P. The third-party 9’s “H consent” to 10’s “1,099’s deliberation” to the following:

A. In addition, the part of H’s 1st and 1st and 1st and the part of the 1st and 2nd and 1,019.67 square meters [3,370.81 square meters in total [3,370.81 square meters in F.8.93 square meters in Dong 885.93 square meters in F.8.93 square meters in Dong 1145.93 square meters in Dong 668.73 square meters in Dong 670.17]] [based on recognition] column 3], “A evidence No. 7, Eul’s evidence No. 8, and the result of the inquiry into the facts about D in the appellate court at the same time.” The Defendant added the following at the end of the fourth 3rd and second 4th m., even if the Defendant is liable to the lender, the Plaintiff was aware of the relation of name lending or was negligent.

The argument is asserted.

The Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was aware of, or did not know due to gross negligence, that the Plaintiff was acting as “M” and that J was acting as “M” and that J was acting as a construction supervisor on the construction site.

There is a lack of recognition and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Part 4-9 of the parallel part 4-9 re-as follows:

A. Therefore, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 76,930,00 for the work price unpaid to the Plaintiff [the total construction price of KRW 132,470,00 [the total construction price of KRW 1,30,00]x 130,00 for the work price paid] and the construction price of KRW 55,540,00 for the work price that was paid] as well as the date following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff, which is obvious from June 9, 2017 to January 22, 2021.