1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant was granted a construction permit to construct a neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant building”) with a total floor area of 39.26 square meters, which is a total floor area of 446.4 square meters, from the land of the Kugdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-si, which is located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant building”).

On the other hand, the above site was owned by G in the name of ownership on the register.

On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D to obtain a contract for the construction of the instant building amounting to KRW 265,000,000 (including surtax) from D (hereinafter “instant contract”) and completed the instant construction work.

On July 11, 2017, the Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant building from the head of Yeongdeungpo-si, the head of the Gu, and completed registration of the preservation of ownership on the instant building on August 7, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 9, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with D on March 23, 2017, and subsequently, concluded the instant contract with D on March 29, 2017, with D as the Defendant’s agent on March 29, 2017 after the Defendant became aware that he/she was the owner of the instant building, and changed the contractor of the instant building to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract for

In concluding the contract, the Defendant is the contractor, and the preparation date was made on March 23, 2017. D concluded the instant amendment contract on behalf of the Defendant, and even if D did not have the authority to conclude the instant amendment contract on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff believed that D had the authority to conclude the said amendment contract on behalf of the Defendant in a de facto marital relationship, and there was justifiable reason to believe that D had the authority to conclude the said amendment contract on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act. 2) Alternatively, the Defendant ratified the execution of the instant amendment contract by D, an unentitled person, and thus, the effect of the instant amendment contract was concluded.