1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied a household amounting to KRW 4,650,000 to “B Daegu Gyeongsan store” (hereinafter “G Daegu Gyeongsan store”) and a household amounting to KRW 13,00,000 to “B Suwon datum” on December 14, 2012, upon receiving a request from the Defendant who runs the franchise business of “B” and directly or through the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant in charge of interior practice, as well as a household amounting to KRW 13,00,000, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the total household price of KRW 17,650,00 and damages for delay.

B. Even if C voluntarily requested the Plaintiff to supply the household and received the delivery of the household, C has the authority to perform interior works on behalf of the Defendant at least for the Defendant, and even if C entered into a household supply contract with the Plaintiff for the Daegu Gyeongsan store and the Suwon datum beyond the scope of the above basic authority, there was justifiable reason to believe that C has the right to represent the household supply contract for the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

C. In addition, the defendant, in collusion with C, made a false statement to the plaintiff as if he had no intention or ability to pay the price of the household immediately and received the supply of the household from the plaintiff. Thus, in accordance with Article 760 of the Civil Act, the defendant is liable for joint tort or is liable for the above tort of C, who is one's employee, under Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above household price.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the contract was contractually responsible between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and whether the household delivery contract was concluded for the Daegu Gyeongsan store and the Suwon datum.

There is no dispute between the parties, or the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1.