1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments to the pertinent part of the appellate court, thereby citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant subcontract does not constitute one’s own transaction, E, at the time of the conclusion of the instant subcontract, concurrently held the Plaintiff’s representative director and the Defendant’s director at the time of the conclusion of the instant subcontract, concluded the instant subcontract by abusing his/her power of representation to promote his/her own interest or the Defendant, and the Defendant knew or could have known such intention of the Plaintiff’s representative director E, and thus

Therefore, as long as the instant subcontract is null and void, the Defendant is obligated to return the construction cost under the instant subcontract received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

B. The act performed by the representative director of the judgment corporation within the scope of his/her representative authority shall be effective once as an act of the company even if the representative director abused his/her authority for the purpose of promoting his/her own interest or a third party, regardless of the company's profit. However, if the other party to the act knew or could have known the representative director's intention, the act

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da16473, Jul. 11, 2013). Examining the instant case, the Plaintiff’s representative director entered into the instant subcontract with a view to pursuing his/her own or the Defendant’s interest solely on the basis of each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 5.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant knew or could have known such fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part.