1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for air-conditioning and heating equipment installation (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant by setting the construction cost of KRW 20,457,00,00. Since there is no dispute between the parties, or the completion of the said construction may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings on the evidence No. 1, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated annually by 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 10, 2017 to February 13, 2018, the date following the notice of the instant payment order, as the Plaintiff seeks, for the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, as the Plaintiff seeks, from June 10, 2017 to February 13, 2018, which is the date following the delivery date of the instant payment order, to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 1,155,00 of the additional construction cost, but it is difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was an agreement to pay it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the Defendant asserts that D is not a party to the instant contract, it is reasonable to deem that the party to the instant contract is the Defendant, since the fact that E, who was the representative director of the Defendant, concluded the instant contract on behalf of the Defendant on January 13, 2016, does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the oral argument in the statement in subparagraph 1.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that the seal of the defendant affixed to the contract of this case is not a corporate seal of the defendant, but as long as E, which was the representative director of the defendant, concluded the contract of this case on behalf of the defendant, it cannot be said that the contract of this case is invalid, even though the seal of the defendant

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s board of directors at the time of entering into the instant contract.