2. The Defendant’s KRW 26,391,800 on January 22, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff operated a “D cafeteria” in the Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-gun, and entered into a contract for accommodation with the Defendant Company, from October 201 to November 201 of the same year, and provided accommodation to the employees of the Defendant Company, who performed construction works in the Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-gun, E.

The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 17,221,80 for accommodation on October 2013, and KRW 9,170,000 for accommodation on November 2013.

Therefore, the plaintiff claims the defendant to pay the total accommodation of 26,391,800 won and damages for delay.

B. In the case where the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the provision of accommodation with the Defendant Company, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the contract only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

(a) The following facts are recognized by the respective statements (including paper numbers), witnesses G, and H’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

① The representative director I of the Defendant Company allowed H to use the office of the Defendant Company’s transfer in connection with the subcontract for the FF works located in Cheongsong-gun E, Cheongsong-gun, the Defendant Company, and ordered H to write down the office of transfer of the Defendant Company.

② Around July 2013, H presented the above name to the Plaintiff, and concluded a contract for accommodation provision to the construction workers of the said construction with the Defendant Company’s transfer of business.

③ L, a constructor of H, was provided accommodation from the Plaintiff from October 2013 to November 11, 2013, and the cost of lodging incurred therefrom is KRW 17,221,800 for October 17, 2013 and KRW 9,170,00 for November 2013.

B. One set of the board, and Article 395 of the Commercial Act do not have the authority to represent the company with respect to the acts of a director who has used a title which is recognized as having the authority to represent the company, such as president, vice president, managing director, managing director, and other titles.