1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and constructs a household with the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant and the appointed party C (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) are those who own a multi-family house of the fourth floor of the ground reinforced concrete structure of Daejeon-dong, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant building”) with 1/2 shares, and are the building owner of the said building.

On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed with F to supply and construct a singing and shoes and to receive KRW 20 million in return.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff completed the supply and construction under the said contract on August 5, 2014, but was not paid the said price (hereinafter “supply price”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, the plaintiff's assertion of the parties concerned as to the purport of the whole pleadings, and the construction of the building of this case directly. F entered into the contract of this case on behalf of the defendant, etc. as a field manager.

In addition, since the phishing and the shoes were supplied and constructed on the instant building, and the Defendant et al. used and profit from the said building, it can be seen that the instant contract was concluded with the Plaintiff and the Defendant et al. implicitly.

Therefore, the defendant et al. is obligated to pay the price for supply under the above contract to the plaintiff.

Even if the defendant et al. awarded a contract to F for the construction of the building in this case, the defendant et al. is deemed to have directed and supervised the building in appearance, so the employer liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act or the contractor under Article 757 of the Civil Act shall be

In order to build the instant building claimed by the Defendant, etc., a construction business operator entered into a contract with F.

The defendant et al. did not know the fact that the contract of this case was concluded, but did not agree to pay the price for supply, so there is no obligation to pay the price to the plaintiff.