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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On December 19, 2016, the Defendant was awarded a contract with C for a new E construction project on the land outside Busan Young-gu, Busan and one parcel of land for KRW 1,400,000,000.

B. On February 21, 2017, the Defendant filed a report on F as a field agent upon submitting a construction start system for the said new construction project to the head of the Busan Si/Gun/Gu, and on July 13, 2017, reported the field agent G to change the site agent.

C. On the other hand, as the company that carried out the electrical construction among the aforementioned new construction works (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”) discontinued construction, G requested the Plaintiff to execute the instant electrical construction on or around June 11, 2017, and the Plaintiff had the remainder of the instant electrical construction executed.

After that, the Plaintiff completed the instant electrical construction, but failed to receive KRW 44,00,000, out of the construction price.

E. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant issued a tax invoice with the Plaintiff’s supplier, the Defendant’s recipient, and the construction cost of KRW 10,000,000.

F. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant remitted KRW 10,156,70 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony of the first instance court H, the fact inquiry results against the head of Busan Si/Gun/Gu, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as a field agent of the Defendant, concluded a subcontract for the instant electrical construction with G on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 44,00,000 and delay damages therefrom.

B. Even if the right of representation of household G is not recognized, the Defendant employed G as a field agent, and considering the fact that G directly received construction cost from the owner, the Defendant granted G the basic right of representation for the instant construction work to G, and the Plaintiff was believed to have the right to conclude a contract on behalf of the Defendant, and there is justifiable reason to believe that G is the right to conclude a contract on behalf of the Defendant.