1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where “15,000,000 won” in the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance is “15,000,000 won” and “10,000,000 won on April 8, 2011,” and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) around October 2009, while showing the defendant's director's name to the plaintiff and presenting the defendant's business registration certificate, requested that the defendant supply oil to the motor vehicle in D site built by the defendant, and supplied the oil equivalent to KRW 93,839,550 to the above field vehicle from December 27, 2009. Thus, the party who entered into a contract for the oil supply of this case with the plaintiff is not C but the defendant. The plaintiff received KRW 45,00,000 from the defendant, etc. and did not receive the remaining KRW 48,839,550, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining oil price to the plaintiff.

(2) Even if C did not have the authority to conclude the instant oil supply contract on behalf of the Defendant.

Even if there is a justifiable reason to believe that C has the authority to conclude the above contract on behalf of the defendant, so the defendant bears the responsibility for the above contract in accordance with the legal doctrine as an expression agent under the Civil Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remaining oil price.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) The oil supply contract of this case concerns the field D, which is a construction site of C individual, and the parties to the contract are not the defendant, so the defendant has no obligation to pay the oil price under the above contract.

(2) Even if C entered into the instant oil supply contract with the Defendant as a party, C entered into the instant oil supply contract.

Even if C did not have the authority to conclude the above contract on behalf of the defendant, it is reasonable to believe that C has the authority to conclude the above contract on behalf of the defendant.