1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

. It is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a discharge contract with C by setting the amount of KRW 2,400 per square meter with respect to the foregoing other work.

However, in the instant case where there is no objective evidence, such as the power of attorney, supporting that C entered into the said contract with the legitimate power of attorney granted by the Defendant Company, it is difficult to readily conclude that C entered into a contract for the said work with the original and the Defendant on February 9, 2018 with respect to the fact inquiry conducted by the Defendant on February 9, 2018.

2) Next, even if the Defendant did not grant C the authority of the field director, in light of the fact that C used the Defendant’s position and name as the Defendant’s director, and the Defendant did not restrain it, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that C’s construction contract through C extends to the Defendant. As such, the contract for construction work via C is effective against the Defendant. * Whether C’s act of concluding a contract constitutes an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act, i.e., an expression agent as an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act, regardless of the nature or validity of the basic legal relationship between the principal and the person who performed the act of acting as an agent, is established when it was done by a third party with the indication that the principal granted the right of representation to the said person in performing a legal act on behalf of the principal (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da23425, Aug. 23, 2007). 4, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract constitutes an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act.

* Next, the health class, as well as the health class, to which the above contract constitutes an expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code.