1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant’s agent network C entered into a survey and design service contract with the amount of KRW 25,000,000 for the real estate D and E owned by the Defendant; and (b) completed the service contract with the permission for development activities in accordance with the said terms and conditions of the contract; (c) the Defendant, upon the Defendant’s request for design change, etc. from May 2015 to June 2016, made a design change and completed the completion inspection; and (d) the Defendant paid KRW 25,00,000 for the total service price of KRW 79,80,000, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 54,80,000 for the service price of KRW 79,80,000.

Even if the network C entered into a service contract with the Plaintiff beyond the scope delegated by the network C

Even if the defendant is liable for the expressive representation, the defendant shall be liable.

2. We examine the judgment. The plaintiff is the service contract of this case, and submitted Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6 as evidence, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the defendant's seal in the circumstance that the defendant's seal affixed to each of the above documentary evidence is not the principal's seal but the defendant's seal affixed to the above documentary evidence. Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 8 (written confirmation) which recognized the authenticity, the defendant's seal affixed to the above written confirmation and the defendant's seal affixed to Gap Nos. 3 through 6 are different.

Therefore, the Defendant’s stamp image part among the evidence Nos. 3 through 6 cannot be used as evidence because it is not recognized as the authenticity.

Even if the authenticity of the Defendant’s seal imprint is not recognized, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the authenticity of the Defendant’s seal imprint was not recognized, the Defendant was granted the power of representation from the Defendant and entered into a contract in accordance with the service contract of this case with the network C, and accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the service cost related to F, G, etc. as stated in the above contract as well as D, E, and E according to the statement of evidence No. 8.