1. The defendant shall pay 42,350,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from September 25, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Facts of recognition

On March 20, 2019, the Seoul Gangnam-gu Office and the defendant concluded a contract for C Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”).

Since then, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (including value-added tax) which is KRW 42,350,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the outer walls and roof cream works of the instant construction site D, which is the head of the site of the instant construction, during the said construction.

In addition, the plaintiff completed the above construction around July 4, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff defendant appointed D as the site director of the construction of this case, who did not dispute, written evidence Nos. 3 through 6, testified by the witness D, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

Therefore, D is a commercial employee with comprehensive power of representation and has the authority to enter into a subcontract for external walls and roof cream works of this case on behalf of the Defendant. Even if not, the Defendant indicated D the granting of power of representation by awarding and ordering D the position of the head of the site office, and the Plaintiff believed D to have the power of representation for the conclusion of the contract of this case, and there is a justifiable reason for such belief.

Thus, the defendant is liable for the expression agency pursuant to Article 125 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the construction cost under the contract of this case to the plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant did not confer the power of attorney to conclude the contract of this case to D, the head of the site office, and in general, cannot be deemed to have the power of attorney to conclude the subcontract.

Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is liable for the expressive representation for the fact that D was to conclude the instant contract beyond the scope of the duties of the head of the site office.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is improper.

Judgment

D The field manager of the construction company within the scope of the D's authority shall generally take charge of the work related to the execution of the construction at a specified construction site.