1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The scope of the judgment of this court was requested from the first instance court to intervene as an independent party against B, but the court of first instance rejected the request.

Since the defendant did not appeal against the rejection of the application for intervention by an independent party among the judgment of the court of first instance, the dismissed part was determined separately from the plaintiff's motion for intervention against the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da4669, 91Da4676, May 26, 1992). A case number (U.S. High Court 2019Na21442) was assigned to an independent party intervention which has been separated and finalized, but this is merely a case where a wrong case number has been assigned due to mistake.

In order to deal with the case to which the case number has been assigned, the case number of the dismissed part shall be indicated in the case number column of this court judgment, but this part has already been terminated, and this part does not exist in the case, and the parties do not make any assertion on this part in the appellate court, so this part is not judged separately, but the declaration of the termination of the

2. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part concerning the Defendant’s assertion of abuse of power of representation (from No. 8th to No. 17th to No. 10th to No. 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance) that the Defendant argued for abuse of power of representation (from No. 8th to No. 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance) is used again as follows; and (b) the Defendant

(A) The Defendant’s assertion as to the abuse of power of representation (A) concluded the instant construction contract on behalf of the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, for the purpose of 814,000,000, the construction cost necessary for the instant construction project was KRW 545,60,000, and thus giving unfair benefit to the Plaintiff. The above agency act in B constitutes abuse of power of representation by the Defendant’s breach of trust. Accordingly, the effect of the instant construction contract does not extend to the Defendant (B).