1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) contracted the creation of E to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) around 2016, and D subcontracted the said construction to the Defendant.

B. On November 25, 2016, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and Belt Conveyor mechanical assembly works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) on the basis of the construction cost of KRW 1,375,00,000 (including value-added tax) and September 30, 2017 on the delivery date.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”). (c)

F On January 10, 2017, with respect to the Plaintiff and the instant construction work, the F entered into a subcontract with the terms of KRW 990,00,000 (including value-added tax), May 30, 2017, and September 30, 2017, on the date of completion of assembly.

(hereinafter “instant sub-subcontract”) D.

The Defendant entered into the instant subcontract with F, while entering into the instant subcontract with J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) and the K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “K”), subcontracted the production of Belgium and franchises to the K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “K”), and the instant subcontract contains installation at the site of the parts by assembling Belgiums and franchises produced and supplied by J and K.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant facilities” in total, including the foregoing Belgium, brander and its ancillary equipment. (e)

F was completed the instant construction around March 2017, and the instant facilities installed at the site did not normally operate, and on March 17, 2017, the Defendant and J, K, and F agreed to pay the said money to F in return for re-production and installation of parts inappropriate or omitted. The Defendant and J, K, and F agreed to pay the said money to F.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant inappropriate construction agreement”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 5, and Eul evidence 1 and 2.