1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The grounds for appeal against the Plaintiff’s primary claim by the court of first instance as to the primary claim are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. However, the Plaintiff primarily agreed to pay the unpaid materials to the Defendant through the Field Director I (H prior to the name of a representative). The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff consented to the use of the existing materials and supplied additional materials in accordance with the agreement.

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the witness J, K, and I’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff at the time of this court’s appearance as witness: (ii) the Plaintiff testified that “the Defendant would have made payment of the material price in lieu of C”; (iii) the Plaintiff’s representative director or employee did not have any right to representation or participate in the negotiation process regarding the payment of the material price; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s representative director or employee did not have any contact with the Defendant regarding the material price; and (v) the Plaintiff’s claim for the material price was not made for more than three years before the instant lawsuit was filed after the resumption of the instant construction, the evidence submitted by the first instance court is the evidence; even if considering the evidence additionally submitted to this court, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant made a verbal agreement through I for the Defendant to pay the material price unpaid to C, the fact finding and judgment at the first instance court on the primary claim is justifiable.

Therefore, this court's explanation of the main claim is the same as the "2. argument and judgment of the court of first instance" of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C is August 2014.