The defendant shall pay 287,430,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 29, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Facts of recognition

On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff, who indicated that he is the Defendant’s agent, drafted a construction contract agreement with the Plaintiff on the construction work that the Plaintiff newly constructs a convalescent hospital on the part of the Defendant Busan City (hereinafter “instant land”) and the construction work cost of KRW 10,876,80,000, and the construction period from June 10, 2013 to June 10, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant construction work.” The Plaintiff partially performed the said construction work in accordance with the said construction contract. After having become aware that the Defendant sold the instant land to D, the Plaintiff suspended the said construction work.

On January 11, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to cancel the instant construction contract and set the term construction cost of KRW 287,430,000, which indicated that the Defendant’s agent was the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 7, witness Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the price of the construction work decided upon by the plaintiff, since Eul obtained comprehensive power of attorney for the construction work of this case from the defendant and concluded the construction contract of this case and confirmed the price of the construction work.

As to this, the defendant asserts that there is no fact of granting the same power of representation to B.

Judgment

According to the evidence No. 7, witness B’s testimony, and party personal examination against the Defendant, the Defendant sold the instant land to June 7, 2013, which was three days prior to the conclusion of the instant construction contract, and around that time, the Defendant appealed with the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office on June 10, 2013, which was the date of entering into the instant construction contract, among the disputes with B concerning how to use and repay the money borrowed under the name of the Defendant. In light of these circumstances, at the time of entering into the instant construction contract, there was no authority to conclude the instant construction contract for the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant construction contract.