공사대금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant is from February 24, 2015 to KRW 14,316,00 for the Plaintiff and its related costs.
1. The Plaintiff, from July 2014 to September 201 of the same year, completed construction works, such as fresh, ready-mixed, and steel bars, among the construction works for the maintenance of steep slope B (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Plaintiff was paid KRW 4,00,000 out of the total construction cost of KRW 18,316,00.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for construction work, such as Puum, ready-mixed, and steel bars during the instant construction work, and C, the Defendant’s site manager, promised to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction price and damages for delay payable to the Plaintiff.
Even if the party who entered into a contract with the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, and even if C is not the Defendant’s site manager, the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that C is entitled to represent the Defendant as the Defendant’s site manager, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost and the damages for delay payable to the Plaintiff in accordance with the apparent representation liability under Articles 125 through 126 of the Civil Act.
B. The Defendant subcontracted part of the instant construction to the Newyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Newyang Construction”), which appears to have concluded a new construction contract with the Plaintiff, and C is not a legitimate agent of the Defendant as the head of the new construction site.
3. Determination
A. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, as a contracting party, and the entire arguments, C may recognize the fact that it has prepared a written confirmation of the purport that it will be paid the construction cost to the Plaintiff by indicating it as the head of the Defendant’s on-site site.
However, the following circumstances, which may be recognized by the purport of Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, 2 (including paper numbers), and 5-1, as a whole, are as follows: