공사대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasons why the court stated this part of the basic facts are set forth by the first instance judgment.
2) Paragraph 3 of the first instance judgment is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for deletion of the third second and second "", and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the claim for damages due to the employer’s liability
A. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, except in the following sub-paragraph (b) or the argument that the Plaintiff is emphasized by this Court, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from the fourth to the eighth (from the eighth to the eighth) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. Grounds for appeal No. 2-B of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the parts after the dismissal.
1)(b) 2nd to 3th (the 6th to 8th) of that (the 6th) "general manager with respect to the construction of this case, who was an electrical constructor," shall be construed as "the former general manager with respect to the construction of this case, who was a electrical construction of this case, on the construction site of Sinung Construction."
The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is 2-B.
1)(b)The 7th (the 6th 12th st st st st st st st st) portion has been written with the following parts:
At the time, I did not obtain permission from J, the site director, for the conclusion of the agreement on the instant construction project, and rather expressed negative opinions by J, but finally ordered the Plaintiff to make a final agreement.
C. Further determination 1) The Plaintiff, as a general manager for field electrical construction, has the authority to notify the Defendant’s decision to the Plaintiff at least or deliver the Plaintiff’s intent to the Defendant, and I notified the Plaintiff of the agreement as part of the Defendant’s performance of his duties. As such, I’s act is an act within the scope of his authority externally and thus, the Defendant’s employer’s liability cannot be exempted. However, as examined in the first instance trial, the employee’s tort is committed.