The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 61 of the Commercial Act provides that when a merchant commits an act on behalf of another person within the scope of his/her business, he/she may claim reasonable remuneration for such act, which is different from the provisions of Articles 686 and 701 of the Civil Act that no special agreement can be made even if he/she commits an act on behalf of another person, the act of the merchant shall aim at profit-making, and when he/she has provided efforts for another person within the scope of his/her business, he/she shall expect the remuneration,

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the Plaintiff, a company engaged in the industrial pipeline processing business, etc., under the adopted evidence, received a request from the Defendant, a company engaged in the manufacturing and selling of parts of the automobile from around May 201, to October 201, and supplied the instant parts to the Defendant after processing the instant parts. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any evidence to prove that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting 5% of the cost of processing the parts from the Defendant, the principal company, the Defendant, as the management cost, under the premise that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff the cost of processing the parts of the instant case, under Article 61 of the Commercial Act, which provides that the Plaintiff may claim reasonable remuneration from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant would have a duty to receive reasonable remuneration from the Plaintiff as to whether the amount of remuneration was paid by the Plaintiff or the Defendant to the Plaintiff.