1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Determination Matters】

A. The plaintiff, who is responsible for representative, delegated the comprehensive authority over the instant construction work by the defendant by delivering the defendant's employee identification number to B, and asserts that since the construction contract form of this case prepared by B is not effective to the defendant, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price of construction KRW 37,510,000, which is not paid to

The entries of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 5 are insufficient to recognize that the defendant granted the comprehensive power of attorney to Eul with respect to the instant construction work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable for the apparent representation pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act, since the Defendant delivered employee identification to B under the conditions as stipulated in the subcontract construction contract between C and the Defendant, the Plaintiff believed that B had the authority to prepare the instant construction contract on behalf of the Defendant, and there is justifiable reason to believe that B had the authority to prepare the instant construction contract on behalf of the Defendant.

An expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Code requires a representative to have the basic right of representation as to a principal's juristic act, and only the statement of evidence No. 5 indicates to the Plaintiff that the Defendant granted the right of representation as to subcontracted work between C and the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that B has the basic power of representation for the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. The Plaintiff’s liability is the Defendant’s employee reduction and exemption to B.