1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. As to the defendant's assertion that he is a contracting party

A. On August 14, 2012 and September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion leased temporary materials to the Defendant in relation to the construction site in Busan City (hereinafter “Gyeongsan”).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 57,102,70 won.

B. There is no sufficient evidence to recognize that the original defendant concluded a contract for the lease of temporary materials at the Gyeongsan site, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Rather, the following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 5, 6, and 7.

(1) A defendant has neither entered into a contract for construction works nor continued construction works in connection with a mountain site.

The evidence No. 7 (Waiver of Construction Work) shown by the defendant that it was consistent with the fact that the contract for construction work was concluded on the field of Gyeongsan cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the petition.

On the other hand, it is recognized that the construction price has been partially deposited with the defendant's account.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant merely lent a loan account for the payment of construction cost in relation to the border construction site B at the request of a bad credit holder B, and the above circumstance alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant continued the border construction site.

② At the Defendant’s Gwangju City Construction Site (hereinafter “Gwanju Site”), the Plaintiff supplied temporary materials to the Busan City Construction Site upon receiving orders from B, who worked as subcontractor.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

2. As to the assertion of expression representation

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant was the representative of the Gwangju field, even if B did not have the authority to conclude a contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant regarding the Gansan site, according to the doctrine of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code, the Defendant said payment to