The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that C did not have the right to represent the Defendant at the time of concluding the instant construction contract on December 29, 2015, on the grounds that C was removed from the representative of the instant apartment building building building building on October 5, 2015, thereby losing the Defendant’s position as the chairperson.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the dismissal of the representative by buildings, which concurrently held the status of officer of the council of occupants’ representatives at least 500 households

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the lapse of the Plaintiff’s power of representation at the time of concluding the instant construction contract.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine of expression delegation by analogy under Article 126 of the Civil Act, contrary to what is alleged

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.