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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who gives the type of mold scams, and the Defendant is a corporation that conducts civil engineering and construction business.

B. The Defendant Company was awarded a new construction contract for the main complex 9-story building located in North Korea-gu C (hereinafter “new construction contract”). The Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with Nonparty D, the vice president of the Defendant Company, on April 4, 2014 with respect to the new construction project of this case, with the construction cost of KRW 311,710,000 on April 4, 2014.

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

C. On April 10, 2014, the Defendant Company entered into a subcontract with Nonparty Dosan Industrial Construction Co., Ltd. and the construction cost of which is KRW 390,00,000 with respect to all of the instant new construction works. Under the said contract, the Defendant Company paid KRW 391,906,000 to the said Do Sung Industrial Construction Co., Ltd. as the construction cost, on seven occasions each of the flag under the said contract.

The above D participated in the construction of this case as a field relation of the new construction of this case by the defendant company, and the non-party E worked as the site director of the new construction of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. In determining whether the above D had the authority to act as an agent for the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff concluded the instant subcontract with the above D, the vice president of the Defendant Company, but the said D actually received orders for the instant new construction works, and paid 3-5% of the construction amount to the Defendant Company, and concluded a construction contract by lending the name of the Defendant Company, and thus the said D actually had the authority to act as an agent for the Defendant Company. However, the Plaintiff stated that the said D had the authority to act as an agent for the Defendant Company, as to whether the said new construction works were managed and operated independently from the Defendant Company.