1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as follows: (a) the date of preparation of evidence No. 1 (a construction contract) in the 2nd judgment of the court of first instance, “No. 19, Jun. 19, 2015” is “No. 1, Jun. 29, 2015 or the date of commencement of construction work falls under June 19, 2015”; (b) it is reasonable to regard the contract as the contract agreement on June 19, 2015.

In addition to the revision of the "39 households" in the third 8 as "37 households", and the "126,364,636 won" in the fourth 14 as "126,36,63,636 won" as "126, 363,636 won", it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first . Therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant has ordered G apartment 152 households to undertake remodeling works. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 220,100,000 won (=24,200,000 won per household x 37,000 won) which remains after deducting 24,100,000 construction cost corresponding to the non-construction portion of 24 households from among the above 152 households (including 6,600,000 won per household x 24,200,000 won - 24,200,000 won - 24,100,000 won). Even if the defendant entrusted D's right to represent only 400,000 households among G apartment 152 households among the above 152 households, it constitutes the plaintiff's request for remodeling construction works by opening the right to represent the plaintiff 25,000,000 won, which is more than the above 406,06 households.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the remodeling cost to the plaintiff.

3. In addition, even if the execution of D's remodeling contract constitutes an unauthorized representation, the defendant.