A. On November 6, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract between C and the Defendant for the remodeling construction of the Gwangju D building (hereinafter “instant construction”) to KRW 1.2 billion for the construction cost (excluding value-added tax).

B. Of the instant construction works, the Defendant agreed to handle the C and the instant construction works as if the Defendant directly performed such construction works, and had C use the rubber and the passbook in the name of the Defendant for the issuance of the tax invoice.

C. On November 22, 2017, C prepared an advertisement installation contract under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant contract”) stating that the Plaintiff and the instant advertisement installation works among the instant construction works (hereinafter “instant advertisement installation works”) will contract the Plaintiff with the total amount of KRW 40 million (in addition to value-added tax, KRW 16 million, the remainder amount of KRW 24 million, and the remainder payment, within seven days after the completion of installation), and signed the Defendant’s rubber seal on the said contract.

On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff received down payment of KRW 16 million from the account opened in the name of the Defendant, and completed the instant advertisement on April 2018, and issued electronic tax invoices to the Defendant on April 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2 through 6, 8, Eul's 1-1, Eul's 1-1, the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to Gap corporation E in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C on behalf of the Defendant entered into a contract for the same construction as the instant contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff completed the instant installation works. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost (=the remainder of KRW 28 million), including value added tax, to the Plaintiff under the said contract.

Even if C's power of representation is not recognized, the defendant ratified C's act of unauthorized Representation.