1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,900,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 20, 2014 to June 10, 2015, and the following.

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 6, the witness C's testimony, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

In around 2013, the Defendant awarded a contract for D Construction Work (hereinafter “D Construction Work”) at the road management office of Jeonnam-do for KRW 876,545,000 for the price, and collectively subcontracted the said original contract to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”).

However, the relevant laws and regulations prohibit a lump sum subcontract, and a specialized construction company that the Defendant possessed only a license for the construction of reinforced concrete, etc. prepares a form of contract as if the Plaintiff subcontracts to the Defendant for the construction of reinforced concrete in the above prime contract amounting to KRW 599,800,000.

B. On December 1, 2013, E is the Defendant’s agent, and between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant subcontracted the G Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) out of the original contract to the Plaintiff in KRW 20,900,000.

C. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract with the Defendant’s field agent C, and the Plaintiff has a partial comprehensive power of attorney regarding the said original contract construction project, including the conclusion of the instant construction contract, pursuant to Article 15 of the Commercial Act.

B) The Defendant conferred the right of representation on the conclusion of the instant construction contract to E. (2) The Plaintiff asserted the liability of the nominal lender (selective claim) on the part of the Plaintiff for the liability of the nominal lender (selective claim) is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, since the Plaintiff, while en bloc subcontracting the said original contract, lent its construction licenses

B. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion has subcontracted the above structural improvement project to E, and E is acting for the defendant without authority.