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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. A. On May 18, 2012, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was awarded a subcontract from the Defendant for a funeral construction among the D apartment construction works located in Mineyang-si C.

B. The Plaintiff received sub-subcontracts from the non-party company for the instant swimming pool works and flooring works. During the process of performing the said works, the Plaintiff carried out ① Dribbur trading works, ② Gyeongburcing of light bricks, ③ creshing of the wall surface creshing works on the wall surface of the wall of the wall of the attached

(3) The above (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, witness E and F of the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant construction work constitutes a separate construction that is not included in the construction that the Plaintiff received re-subcontract from the non-party company. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the price of the instant construction work by ordering the Plaintiff to undertake the instant construction work, which is the Defendant’s field employees, concluded a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the instant construction work, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 1085 million (i.e., KRW 8., KRW 85 million, ② KRW 2 million, ③ KRW 350,000,000, and KRW 350,000), and delay damages.

B. In a case where the above employees did not have the authority to conclude a contract for the instant construction project with the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant’s employees deceiving the Plaintiff as if they were to pay the price and let the Plaintiff perform the instant construction project, thereby causing damages equivalent to the price. In addition, the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the price due to the completion of the instant construction project, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the price for damages or return of unjust enrichment based on the employer’s liability

3. Determination

A. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the contract for work was based on the Defendant E, etc. is the Plaintiff.