1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On August 1, 2013, between C and the Defendant’s representative around August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is deemed to have entered into a contract on the painting construction work around the runway of D Military Units (hereinafter “instant contract”).

Since the Defendant concluded the above construction and completed the construction, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 500,000 as well as damages for delay.2) Even if C did not have the right to represent the Defendant, the Defendant permitted C to engage in the business using his trade name, so the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said construction cost as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. In full view of C’s determination as to the existence of the power of representation, the parties did not dispute, the written evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 4 (including the serial number), and the testimony and the whole purport of oral argument by the witness of the trial party C, the confirmation document (Evidence No. 1) prepared by C and the Plaintiff entering into the instant contract is written with “E”, which is the trade name of the Defendant’s construction company, at the bottom of the signature of C, and the Defendant received a tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff at the request of the site manager of the D-U military unit emergency painting work, and the runway rooftop waterproof work, etc., which was conducted by the Plaintiff, at the request of the site manager of the J.D. (hereinafter “D-U military unit construction”), and paid KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2013, and KRW 220,000,000 from August 20, 2013.

Rather, according to each of the above evidence, C is only recognized as the site director of the re-integrated construction, and C has entered into the instant contract on behalf of the Defendant, and therefore, C is premised on the fact that it entered into the instant contract on behalf of the Defendant.