1. The plaintiff's appeal and the second preliminary claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the cases where the plaintiff added the judgment of the second preliminary claim added by this court to the following Paragraph 2, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main

2. Judgment on the second preliminary claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied two electric design drawings to the Defendant as a merchant operating the electric design business, etc., and accordingly, the Plaintiff sought payment of the price for the electric design that the Plaintiff performed on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to Article 61 of the Commercial Act.

B. In the event that a merchant commits an act on behalf of another person within the scope of his business, he may claim reasonable remuneration for such act in accordance with Article 61 of the Commercial Act, and the act on behalf of another person here means an act on behalf of another person.

In addition, Article 61 of the Commercial Code provides that when a merchant acts for profit-making purposes and makes efforts for others within the scope of business, he/she is expected to pay remuneration, and it is recognized that the payment of remuneration for a person who benefits therefrom is consistent with the common sense of commercial transactions.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da8059, Nov. 26, 2015). In full view of the fact that there is no dispute, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of witness C by the first instance witness C, the Plaintiff is a merchant of the company established to conduct an electric design business, etc., and the fact that the Plaintiff supplied two electric design drawings to the Defendant is recognized

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone entered into a subcontract with Etept Korea as an electrical design that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that he/she has obtained other benefits or has obtained other benefits, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.