1. The Defendant shall pay 80,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from June 2, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. On March 16, 2016, C, the vice president of the Defendant of the basic facts, agreed to pay the agreed amount to KRW 80,00,000 for the additional work after November 15, 2015, when the Plaintiff received a contract from the Defendant Company for the installation of the Mexico Mosing Facilities and Equipment, and to pay the agreed amount by April 10, 2016.

(hereinafter “this case’s agreement”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On November 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff completed the process prescribed in the existing construction contract, and the Defendant would first settle the construction cost and make an additional construction work later, and thus, the Plaintiff added the additional construction work from November 2015 to January 2016.

After that, after consultation with the vice president C of the defendant, the plaintiff was resulting in the agreement in this case to determine the additional construction cost of KRW 80,000,000 after having been consulted with the vice president C of the defendant in November 2015.

C was a person who had worked in E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) and was the Defendant’s side manager of the construction project for installation of facilities, such as the Mexicor, contracted by the Defendant from E, and entered into a contract by directly negotiating with the Plaintiff, and agreed to settle the additional construction cost.

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant granted C the right of representation to the agreement of this case or ratified it later, and even if not, C is an employee delegated to Mexico for construction works of Mexico, it is reasonable to deem C as a commercial employee with a partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, and C has the authority to conclude an additional construction cost payment agreement.

Even if C does not have the authority to conclude the instant agreement, the Plaintiff believed that C has the authority to conclude the instant agreement on behalf of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff had C.