1. Preliminary Defendant C’s KRW 39,00,000 and 5% per annum from February 21, 2016 to January 9, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are the same partnership relationship, and the Defendants are South Korea.

B. On January 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B for a remodeling project on three units of buildings located in D at the time of residence from Defendant B (house building 2 units, warehouse building 1 units, hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”).

C. Defendant B paid the Plaintiff, at the cost of construction, KRW 15 million on January 7, 2016, KRW 5 million on January 19, 2016, KRW 5 million on January 19, 2016, and KRW 30 million on January 27, 2016.

Around January 11, 2016, Defendant C, who was expected to actually live in the instant building, requested the Plaintiff to perform additional construction works on the instant building. On February 15, 2016, Defendant C prepared a written confirmation (Evidence A No. 3) as follows and issued it to the Plaintiff.

D C [Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the plaintiff's claim against the main defendant B

A. The Plaintiff, acting as an expression agent beyond his authority, instructed Defendant C to the Plaintiff a process beyond the scope of construction agreed upon with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff proceeded with the instant construction in accordance with the order of Defendant C. Since there are justifiable grounds to believe that Defendant C had the authority to engage in a legal act exceeding the scope of the authority granted by Defendant C, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 39 million of the unpaid construction amount as the subject to which the legal effect under the additional construction contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C belongs.

In order to establish an expression agent in excess of the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act, there must be a person who represents the agent and there should be reasonable grounds to believe that he has the authority to act on behalf of the other party. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff alone are that Defendant C has any authority to act on behalf of the defendant.