1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) On December 11, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with C (hereinafter “C”) on December 11, 2003.

D and 8 parcels (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) located in Singu, Singu, in the amount of KRW 1.2 billion.

3) On the ground, the construction site for the new apartment (hereinafter “instant construction site”)

(C) On February 20, 2004, the Defendant entered into a waste disposal contract with the same content as that of the Defendant who acquired the status C on February 20, 2004 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost under the instant contract, even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not explicitly conclude the instant contract, since they knew that the Plaintiff had been engaged in removal and waste disposal of approximately 85% of the ground streets at the instant construction site until August 2005, the Plaintiff discontinued the construction work after receiving only some payment for the construction cost, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost. (2) Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not explicitly conclude the instant contract, the Defendant’s representative director H at the time agreed to implement the said construction, even though they knew that the Plaintiff had been engaged in removal and waste disposal of most of the ground streets at the instant construction site up to about 85%, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost.

3 Even if G, who directly entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff as an expression agent, did not receive the power of representation from the Defendant, G, as the head of the Defendant’s planning office, was granted the fundamental power of representation from the Defendant due to the relationship in which G, as the head of the Defendant’s planning office, overall control over the removal of ground houses in the instant construction site and the relocation of residents, etc., and the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, was authorized to conclude the said contract.