1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 45,689,402 and to the plaintiff on December 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 2012, the Defendant, a civil engineering and building company, was awarded a subcontract for the construction project from the Sejong Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. for the construction project of the Ansan G apartment (hereinafter “instant construction project”), and performed the construction project.

B. From June 25, 2012, D was assigned as the Defendant’s field agent at the construction site at the instant construction site.

C. On behalf of the Defendant on July 2, 2012, D: (a) “I” requested that the network A, which operated safety goods, construction materials, wholesale and retail companies, supply safety goods, construction materials, etc. at the instant construction site at the instant construction site; (b) accordingly, from July 4, 2012 to August 2012, the network A supplied the Defendant with safety goods, construction materials, etc. equivalent to the total amount of KRW 45,689,402 (hereinafter “instant goods”); and (c) the Defendant submitted a tax invoice issued at the time of delivery by the network A to the Seoul East Customs Office, and filed a purchase transaction report as indicated below.

2012-07-25 24,307,932 2012-07-25 4,130,610-25 1,134,650 2012-08-314,802,810 2012-31,313,40 in total 45,689,402

D. The deceased died on June 2, 2014, during which the court of the first instance continued to be affiliated, and on July 22, 2014, the deceased’s report on the renunciation of inheritance was accepted by all the successors of the deceased’s family court ( Daegu Family Court Decision 2014Ra1726), and on August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff was appointed as an administrator of inherited property of the deceased’s family court ( Daegu Family Court Decision 2014Ra1692), and taken over the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5 through 8 (including each number in the case of additional numbers); Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6; Eul’s testimony by the witness of the first instance court; the testimony by the witness C of the first instance court; the order and reply of submission of tax information by the court of first instance on March 14, 2013; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, D is granted a comprehensive power of attorney on the instant construction work by the Defendant, and is networked on behalf of the Defendant lawfully.