1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the fact that “No. 18 and 19” is based on “Evidence No. 12, 13, 18, and 19” during the second 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff Company asserted that the instant construction work that the Defendant Company received from the Busan District Office of Education was subcontracted to the Defendant Company in KRW 95,805,138, an amount equivalent to 70% of the price thereof.

However, even if the Defendant Company received advance payment of KRW 300 million from the ordering office, it did not pay KRW 210 million equivalent to that of said KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff Company cancelled the said subcontract. As such, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company the construction cost, etc. paid by the Plaintiff Company as compensation for restitution due to cancellation of the contract or nonperformance

B. The Defendant Company’s assertion that the instant construction was directly managed by the Defendant Company, but delegated the instant construction to D to do so. However, regardless of the occurrence of construction costs, D requested and refused to pay KRW 210 million equivalent to 70% of the advance payment, and did not have concluded a subcontract with the Plaintiff Company.

Although it is recognized that the Defendant Company has a duty to settle the construction cost incurred by D with respect to the instant construction project, considering that the contact construction works partially executed by D was performed by mistake and most reconstruction were conducted after removal, the Defendant Company did not have any amount to actually settle the construction cost.

3. Determination

A. In principle, insofar as the representative director of a stock company is not a representative director, the company is held liable on an exceptional basis by the legal doctrine of the expressed representative director, even if a third party is a person who substantially controls the company.