1. The independent party intervenor's claim against the defendant is dismissed;

2. The costs of lawsuit incurred by the intervention of an independent party shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building (hereinafter “instant construction”) from D.

B. In the vicinity of the instant construction site, an independent party intervenor registered the business in the name of the Plaintiff, and thereafter F operated a restaurant in mutual name, and provided meals to the persons of the instant construction.

C. The Defendant or the owner D wired the money to the independent party intervenor as listed below, with respect to the ceremony that the independent party intervenor provided from December 2, 2015 to the parts of the instant construction, to November 2016.

B B B B B B B BD [based ground for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Byung evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The independent party intervenor's assertion ① the independent party intervenor provided meals to the members of the instant construction work at the Defendant's request of H, which is the head of the Defendant's site. As such, a contract was concluded between the independent party intervenor and the Defendant to provide meals to the members of the instant construction work. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the independent party intervenor the amount calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 630,000 from the Defendant's employees' food costs of KRW 7,180,00 (7,810,000 from the Defendant's employees' food costs of KRW 630,000 from the Defendant's employees' food costs of KRW 7,810,00 and damages for delay.

② Even if the defendant did not have the right of representation against H, the expression agency is established in light of the fact that the defendant paid food to the intervenor of the independent party to the case for about one year, and even if not, in light of the above food payment act, the defendant paid food to other parts of the construction of this case other than the employee belonging to the defendant. Thus, H's unauthorized representation is ratified.

Therefore, the defendant.