In addition to the above consideration, the plaintiffs also asserted that the defendant D, the owner of the defendant company, transferred 15,600 shares of the defendant company owned by the defendant company to the plaintiff B, and that the defendant company is responsible for the management of the guarantor's succession to the financial institution loan of the plaintiff company, and that the defendant company paid 200 million won subsidies for overseas works to the plaintiff company, and that the defendant company was awarded a contract with the plaintiff company when the defendant company was awarded a contract for the government-funded construction work, and that the contract was based on it (hereinafter "the agreement of this case").

Therefore, although the Defendants granted the right of representation to E to conclude a contract with the Plaintiff Company for the payment of KRW 300 million in return for the division and merger of the Plaintiff Company’s electrical construction business, they prepared the above agreement with the Plaintiff Company beyond its scope, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that E has the authority to do so from the standpoint of the Plaintiffs, so the contents of the above agreement are invalid against the Defendants.

Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether E, who received power from the Defendants to conclude an agreement with regard to partial merger and merger of electrical construction business, has the authority to conclude such agreement.

2. Determination

A. Whether the instant agreement was made within the scope of the power of representation or not, Nos. 2 and 9 (a copy of passbook), A’s evidence Nos. 13-1, 13-2, 2, and 3 (a copy of corporate registry) (a copy of passbook), and the following circumstances are revealed in light of the purport of each entry and all pleadings in the transfer contract.

① Defendant D shall have the ability to perform the electrical construction business of Defendant D around 2009.