1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 6,350.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as stated in the “1. Basic Facts” judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff as the defendant's employee included the human body in the construction of this case as a result of the contract with C representing the defendant (hereinafter "the contract of this case") and carried out the floor-building construction. Thus, the defendant is "the labor cost of this case" as "the total labor cost of 6,350,000 won and damages for delay" as "the labor cost of this case".

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the labor cost of this case by allowing C to use the title as the head of a department, and the plaintiff concluded the contract of this case with C to believe C as the defendant's employee, and thus, the defendant should be held liable for the labor cost of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's preparatory documents, etc. based on the preparatory documents, etc. submitted on June 14, 2017).

3. Determination

A. The reasoning of the judgment as to the assertion of acting representative is insufficient to acknowledge that C obtained the power of representation as to the conclusion of the contract of this case from the Defendant solely on the basis of each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, 9, 16, and 18, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(O) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 22 of Eul, C is only recognized as a representative director of D who subcontracted the instant construction work from the defendant). Therefore, this part of the argument premised on the fact that C had the power to conclude the instant contract with the defendant, is without merit.

B. The expression agency by the indication of the granting of power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act, which determines the assertion of the expression agency, does not directly relate to the nature or validity of the basic legal relationship between the person who performed the act as an agent and a third party on behalf of the principal.