1. The defendant's order for payment of construction cost in Daejeon District Court 2014 tea3039 against the plaintiff is based on the original order for payment of construction cost.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2013, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a payment order for the payment of the said construction cost, arguing that the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 70,353,904 for the payment of the construction cost, on the ground that the Plaintiff paid only KRW 16,363,636 of the said construction cost, and did not pay the remainder KRW 70,353,904, as the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant the remainder of KRW 16,363,636 of the said construction cost.

B. On May 8, 2014, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 70,353,904 and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service of the payment order to the day of full payment. The above payment order was finalized on May 29, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant did not conclude a contract for construction with the Plaintiff, and did not take over both the construction cost obligations.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's obligation to pay the construction price against the defendant exists, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied.

B. Defendant 1) Representation and Apparent Representation C is the Plaintiff and C (hereinafter “Nonindicted D”)

) and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted E”);

as the actual owner of the three companies, there are comprehensive powers of representation for the said three companies.

On October 10, 2013, C representing the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the new mechanical and fire fighting works in B care hospitals in KRW 88,353,904.

Even if not recognized as C’s power of representation, the Plaintiff bears the responsibility of expression representation pursuant to Article 125 of the Civil Act.