beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,731,052 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 18, 2012 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged as facts, without dispute between the parties, or by considering Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 to 6, 3-1 to 3, 5, 6-1 to 3, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, 6-1 to 3, 6-1, 6-1, 6 of the evidence Nos. 3, C's testimony, witness D's testimony, part of the witness testimony of this court, order and reply of the submission of tax information to the head of Seoul East East District Tax Office (as of March 14, 2013) and the whole purport of the arguments after the plaintiff's examination (as of March 14, 2013), and witness D's testimony that seems contrary thereto is difficult to believe, and evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 4, 5, 8-13 of the evidence Nos. 2, and evidence Nos. 5, 8-13 of the evidence No. 5, and testimony of E.
Around June 2012, the Defendant had subcontracted the construction work among the construction work for the new G apartment in Ansan-dong G apartment (hereinafter “instant construction work”) and performed the construction work.
B. D from June 25, 2012, from around the construction site of this case, D was placed as the Defendant’s on-site agent.
C. Around July 2, 2012, D requested the Plaintiff to supply safety goods, construction materials, etc. at the construction site of this case on behalf of the Defendant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied goods worth KRW 52,731,052 in total at the construction site of this case from July 4, 2012 to September 13, 2012.
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, D, a field agent, obtained comprehensive power of representation from the Defendant regarding the business of the instant construction, and thus, the goods delivery contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded effective.
In addition, in full view of the purport of each of the above evidence, D appears to have requested the Plaintiff to supply the goods until the completion of the instant construction work, and accordingly, the Plaintiff appears to have supplied the goods requested by D or Defendant employees from time to time. Accordingly, D’s post-on-site agent was left alone.