공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court, the defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of new arguments by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main
2. The part of the first instance judgment, which was written in height, is "29,832,00 won" for "26,103,00 won" for the last 2nd parallel of the second instance judgment, and the fourth 5-7 parallel of the fourth 5-7th judgment of the first instance court, "A evidence No. 1 has a seal affixed to the defendant's name, not the defendant's seal, and the defendant's seal is affixed to the evidence No. 2; the defendant's seal imprint is affixed to the evidence No. 1 and 2; the defendant's seal imprint is affixed to the evidence No. 1 and 2; the defendant's seal imprint is not the defendant's seal imprint; the defendant's seal imprint is affixed to the evidence No. 5-7
3. Determination on new arguments
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even if the implied ratification of the act of unauthorized Representation constituted an act of unauthorized Representation, the Defendant was aware of the fact that D entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant when he received a tax invoice from the Defendant around December 20, 2015, that is, D’s act of unauthorized Representation, and even after the completion inspection was conducted without requesting the removal of the elevator, it is reasonable to deem that D’s act of Unauthorized Representation was ratified by such series of acts. If the Defendant is not a party to the instant contract, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice under Article 32 of the Value-Added Tax Act even though he knew that the Defendant was not a person supplied with the elevator from the Plaintiff, and thus, is likely to be held liable for criminal liability under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, taking into account such risk, even if he did not request the removal of the elevator, and then he was using the elevator in the instant case.