A. On August 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant’s agent on wooden construction among the new construction works of two multi-household houses with 1,120 square meters in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun (hereinafter “multi-household houses in this case”) and completed the said construction works.

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant that the ownership of the above multi-household housing E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing”) should be transferred at KRW 120,000 on behalf of the Defendant for the said construction cost (hereinafter the instant sales contract).

C. On September 1, 2015, the Defendant delegated C the authority regarding the new construction of the instant multi-household housing and the conclusion of payment in kind.

On November 17, 2016, a deceased person completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 12, 2016 for the instant housing (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of ownership transfer”).

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings (including documentary evidence numbers)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant delegated the authority to conclude the construction contract and the payment contract of the entire multi-household house of this case after the contract for sale in this case was made and the contract for sale in this case was made, the above contract for sale in this case was concluded according to the Defendant’s intention or confirmed the Defendant’s implied act. Thus, as alleged by the Defendant, even if the contract for sale in this case was concluded by acting as an unauthorized agent, the Defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership to

B. As recognized earlier than the occurrence and scope of the liability for damages, the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff was impossible due to the registration of ownership transfer of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant incurred the Plaintiff from nonperformance of the said obligation.