1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

C (the representative director of the Defendant Company) around October 27, 2015, from D Co., Ltd., to the construction period of reinforced concrete construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) among the construction works of the building for the building for the building for the building for the building for the building for the building of the building for the building for the building located in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and received a contract for construction price of KRW 472 million from October 26, 2015 to February 28, 2016.

The Plaintiff presented the name that F is a director of the Defendant Company and requested the supply of goods at the instant construction site, and supplied construction materials equivalent to KRW 17,442,183 (hereinafter “instant goods”) in total at the instant construction site from November 20, 2015 to January 16, 2016.

On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 13,535,423 out of the above amount to the Defendant Company.

[Reasons] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, and the plaintiff's assertion by the party concerned: The plaintiff supplied the goods of this case at the site of the construction of this case at the request of F, a director of the defendant company, so the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 17,442,183.

Even if F is not a representative of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company requested the Plaintiff to supply the name of the director of the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company thus indicated the granting of the power of representation to F to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant Company should be held liable for expressive representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act.

Defendant: The party who supplied goods at the construction site of this case is only F, and Defendant Company did not conclude the supply contract of this case, and there is no fact that it was involved in the instant construction, and thus, is not obligated to pay the price of goods.

Judgment

In presenting to the Plaintiff, whether F is acting as the authorized representative, that the Plaintiff is asked to supply the instant goods to the site of the instant construction work, and that the Plaintiff will future as to some of the amounts.