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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. From around 2001, the Plaintiff, with his spouse I, engages in wholesale and retail business of steel products, construction materials, safety goods, etc. with his/her spouse C with his/her trade name (i). On January 30, 201, the Plaintiff registered and continues to operate the above business.

The defendant is a company running construction business, etc.

B. On February 17, 2012, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction of new facilities for the elderly and children on the ground E in the wife population E (hereinafter “new construction of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff used the Defendant’s position as a director in the name of “C” (not the registered director) and supplied construction materials equivalent to KRW 54,734,360 (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the new construction site of this case through F who performed the Defendant’s on-site agent at the site of the new construction project of this case from April to November 2012.

On May 31, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 15,439,400 in total, including the remittance of KRW 2,750,000 as the price for the instant goods, KRW 2,745,600 on June 13, 2012, and KRW 2,745,600 on July 3, 2012, and KRW 7,000 on August 1, 2012, and the tax invoice for the remittance was issued in the name of I.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 13, 14, Eul evidence 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness H, F, G, and D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion F is a person who overall control over the work of the new construction works of this case as the Defendant’s field agent for the new construction works of this case. The Plaintiff supplied the goods of this case to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant as an ombudsman who requested the supply of goods. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods of this case.

Even if the Defendant did not grant F the right of representation for the supply of goods to F, the Plaintiff may enter into a contract for the supply of goods by F on behalf of the Defendant or the Defendant.