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. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who runs a construction business under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a corporation that runs a construction business.

B. Around December 2017, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for prefabricated-type installation works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) from D, among the construction works for the construction of a prefabricated-gu Busan Party E-ground plant that the Defendant performed (hereinafter “instant construction works”) at KRW 1,1630,000 for the construction cost.

C. The Plaintiff, from December 9, 2017 to December 20, 2017, completed construction by performing the said subcontracted project.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and images (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On the other hand, the Plaintiff concluded the construction contract and completed the construction work upon request from D, which is the Defendant’s site manager, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 1,1630,000 and the damages for delay.

Preliminaryly, even though family D is not an employee of the defendant, as long as the defendant had D use the position of director, and had D direct and supervise the instant construction work, the defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff according to the name lender's liability under Article 124 of the Commercial Act or the apparent representation liability under Article 125 of the Civil Act.

B. The Defendant did not have any awareness with the Plaintiff and concluded a contract for the construction of the instant construction work.

Since the Plaintiff appears to have concluded a construction contract with D who received part of the new construction works from the Defendant, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the construction cost of the instant case to the Plaintiff.

3. The fact that the Plaintiff performed the construction work of this case upon request from D is the same as the above. The above fact that D had the authority to act on behalf of the Defendant was considered as a whole and the purport of the entire pleadings in light of the above facts of recognition and the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 5.