1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Of the disposition of the first instance court, “Article 1(1).”

1. As to the cause of claim

A. A. Around 2014, the Defendant, a construction company having its head office at a female city, supplied a construction project implemented in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction project”). Around 2014, the Defendant, a construction company with its head office at Gangnam-gu (hereinafter “the instant construction project”). Around 2014, ordered C to take overall charge of the instant construction project, ordering C to order C to be “the Defendant’s president” and obtain a copy of the Defendant’s business registration certificate from July 1, 2014 to September 13, 2014, supplied C with meals, such as erosion, occupation, etc., to workers at the instant construction site from around July 1, 2014 to around September 13, 2014. The price reaches KRW 9,409,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination 1) C requested the Plaintiff to supply meals on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant contests that C did not have the right of representation to conclude a meal supply contract, and therefore, whether the act of representation by the Defendant is lawful or not. Even based on the Defendant’s own assertion, the Defendant’s location of the main office and the construction site of this case are far away from the distance so that C may exercise overall control over the instant construction (in response and petition of appeal, the Defendant asserted that the construction was transferred to C).

It is reasonable to deem that C, as a commercial employee with a partial comprehensive power of attorney under Article 15 of the Commercial Act, has the authority to conclude a meal supply contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant. Even if it is not so, C was employed by the Plaintiff to exercise overall control over the construction site of this case, and stated that C was the Defendant’s complaint, and delivered a copy of the Defendant’s business registration certificate, it is deemed that C had a legitimate reason to believe that it had the authority to act for the Defendant.

Therefore, the agency act of C is lawful and effective, and the defendant.