1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is that the instant case is cited by the court of first instance on the ground of the first instance judgment’s reasoning, i.e., “ March 15, 2010.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 420, Mar. 12, 2010), and the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that he/she is responsible as an agent under Article 48 of the Commercial Act. The plaintiff asserts that the conclusion of the contract for the electrical construction of this case is a commercial activity and is for the defendant who is the principal, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 48 of the Commercial Act, the defendant is responsible as the principal of the contract.

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant granted B the right to conclude the instant electrical construction contract on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted without the need to examine further.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has the right of representation as the wife B, and the plaintiff has been continuously entrusted with construction works from the defendant and B since 2008 and has been paid the construction price from the defendant. At the time of entering into the contract of the electrical construction of this case, the plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that the plaintiff has the right to enter into the contract of this case as the defendant's representative, so the defendant asserts that the defendant has the right of representation pursuant to Article 126 of the

According to the evidence No. 9, the defendant reported marriage with B on February 27, 1980 and completed the report of divorce on July 19, 2013.

However, as acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that the remaining construction cost under the instant electrical construction contract was not paid, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, who was not the Defendant, at the early stage of the dispute, and rendered a favorable judgment on March 21, 2012.