1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant’s construction work of building on the ground C of Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

2) The Plaintiff was the Defendant’s agent, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of building materials to be used at the construction site of this case (hereinafter “instant contract”).

A) Around November 2016 to March 2017, the Defendant supplied building materials equivalent to KRW 8,446,450 in total to the Defendant. 2) Even if D did not have the right to represent the Defendant, the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that D had the right to represent the Defendant at the time, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of building materials under the instant contract, in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression representation by granting the power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act or by exceeding the power of Article 126 of the Civil Act.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,285,70,70 (=8,446,450 - 4,160,750) (i.e., the remaining construction cost, excluding KRW 4,160,750) that the Plaintiff was paid through D, the Defendant’s agent, and damages for delay. (ii) The party that entered into the instant contract with the Defendant and was supplied with the construction cost is only E (hereinafter “E”).

The F is the F who operated D or B/C’s personal business entity, and the Defendant is not a contracting party, and there is no fact that the Defendant granted D the power of representation for the conclusion of the instant contract.

2. Determination

A. As evidence that the parties to the instant contract and D agreed to the Plaintiff’s assertion as the proxy, there is a “supplier: the Plaintiff and the person receiving the instant contract: the Defendant” and “a certified mail sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant,” which was submitted as evidence No. 1 as to the sum of KRW 8,875,020, which was prepared between November 2, 2016 and March 30, 2017, as well as a transaction list of KRW 8,875,020, which was submitted as evidence No. 5.

However, evidence No. 1-3.