1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,277,870 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from August 20, 2013 to August 21, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of artificial fishery, etc., and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of construction business, etc.

B. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant with respect to the first phase (hereinafter “the first phase”) of the instant construction works that the Defendant contracted from the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant construction works”) for the construction period from February 20, 2012 to May 15, 2012, and the construction amount was KRW 74,206,00 (the construction amount was reduced to KRW 73,278,700 after reduction to KRW 73,278,70).

C. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant with respect to the secondary construction of the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant secondary construction work”) from July 12, 2012 to September 25, 2012; the construction cost was KRW 170,219,500, and the construction cost was at KRW 258,80,000 due to the modification of the design; thereafter, the Plaintiff entered into a modified contract with the Defendant to increase the construction cost to KRW 258,80,000, and completed the construction work.

B Development Corporation was completed on October 5, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 9, 11, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After the completion of the instant secondary construction work, the Plaintiff carried out the additional construction work (hereinafter “instant additional construction”) according to C’s demand and instruction, which is the Defendant’s site director and his agent, and disbursed construction costs of KRW 197,695,850.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the additional construction cost to the plaintiff.

B. Even if it is not recognized that the power of representation for the instant additional construction works is not recognized to Guides and C, the Defendant dispatched C to the site of the instant construction, thereby allowing C to participate in the construction, thereby having the Plaintiff believe that C had the authority to instruct the additional construction works on behalf of the Defendant, so the Defendant shall pay the additional construction cost to the