Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

2. In the first instance trial, the Defendant asserts that the above construction contract agreement was not a party C, and that the Defendant’s statement on the second day for pleading of the first instance trial, which recognized the obligation to return advance payment following the cancellation of the construction contract of this case, was cancelled since it was contrary to the truth and due to mistake.

First of all, as to whether the Defendant granted the right of representation to C with respect to the instant construction contract agreement, the act of granting the right of representation may be done by an implied expression of intent without express expression of intent. There is also a case where the granting of the right of representation is inferred by de facto neglect, such as where a certain person knows that he/she performed an act with the appearance of his/her agent, without objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da20315, May 26, 2016), Eul evidence No. 4 (including a serial number), and Eul’s testimony at the trial witness C, comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleading, C is operating a business of newly constructing and selling a gate to the Defendant’s land adjacent to the instant land, and the Defendant reports the fact that he/she received KRW 30,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff as an advance payment for the construction of electric source housing under the name of the head of the Tong, and the fact that it received KRW 315,15,015,0,00,000,00.

According to the above facts of recognition, C is not only the sales contract of this case from the defendant.