The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 104 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the head of a local government may entrust a corporation, organization, institution, or individual with affairs not directly related to the rights and obligations of residents, such as investigation, inspection, verification, and management, among affairs under his/her authority, as prescribed by municipal ordinances or municipal rules;

In addition, in cases where the so-called “public contract” in which a local government becomes a party to a private economy is a private contract concluded on an equal basis with the other party as the subject of the private economy, the principle of private autonomy and freedom of contract, and the principle of private law is likewise applied, except as otherwise expressly provided in the relevant statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2012Ma1097, Sept. 20, 2012). Meanwhile, a mandatary performs the delegated affairs with the care of a good manager according to the terms of delegation (see Article 681 of the Civil Act). Therefore, even if the delegated affairs are completed by a mandatary, he/she is liable for damages incurred therefrom to the mandator.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the mandatary is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the expenses incurred additionally due to the mandatary’s default on his/her duty, if he/she has paid the expenses that he/she would not have paid if he/she had performed the duties in accordance with the principal domicile of the mandate, or incurred the duties in accordance with the principal domicile of the mandate even though he/she had performed the duties in which he/she had performed the duties in which he/she could not have performed the duties in accordance with the principal domicile of the mandate.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da36289 delivered on December 10, 1996). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed. A.

(1) The plaintiff and the defendant shall be Sung-gun around December 29, 2008.