1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 23,00,000 won and the period from February 20, 2016 to December 14, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the representative of the D Company, and Defendant C is the actual representative of the D Company as the husband of Defendant B.

B. The Defendants acknowledged that the Defendants entered into a contract with E in the reply on February 3, 2017.

on June 23, 2015, the project owner E has been awarded a contract for a new F&D project (hereinafter in this case’s construction project) with the amount of KRW 800,000,000, and the publication period from June 25, 2015 to October 25, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract of KRW 23,000,000 of the construction amount from G, a field manager of the instant construction project, and completed the unclaimed construction from October 8, 2015 to February 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding results with H, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is the head of the field office of the construction of this case and completed the unclaimed construction work under a subcontract within the scope of legitimate authority from G, a representative of the defendants, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the unclaimed construction cost of KRW 23,00,000 and delay damages.

B. The director of the construction company’s site is generally responsible for the work related to the construction at a specific construction site. Thus, barring special circumstances, the construction company’s site manager constitutes an “employee delegated to a specific type of business or a specific matter of business” under Article 15 of the Commercial Act and has a partial comprehensive power of attorney to conduct all non-judicial acts with respect to the work related to the construction.

However, all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the portion of the subcontract amount of the contract of this case to the plaintiff, the type and contents of the construction performed by the plaintiff, and the fact that the conclusion of the subcontract on the portion of the unclaimed construction is not clearly disputed within the scope of the authority of G in the field director.