1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for construction works with the name of B and the contractor as the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 275 million, the commencement date, November 3, 2013, and on February 3, 2014, for the construction of Class 1 neighborhood facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government C and D (hereinafter “the instant construction works”), with the determination of the completion date as the date of the commencement.

B. The construction work under the instant construction contract was completed, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation as to the instant building by the Incheon District Court No. 60113, Jun. 23, 2014.

C. The Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff the total of KRW 166 million on November 5, 2013, and KRW 66 million on December 12, 2013, the sum of KRW 166 million on December 12, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 3-7, 10, 11 (including number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), fact-finding with respect to Cheongbu Branch of Suhyup Bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of both claims is that the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with B, for which the power of representation was granted to the Defendant, and even if the instant construction contract was concluded under the name of the Defendant even though B did not have been granted the power of representation from the Defendant, the Defendant confirmed, at the Plaintiff’s request, the act of unauthorized Representation B, such as payment of 166 million won in advance and payment of 166 million won in advance. As such, the Plaintiff completed the construction in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of 19

As to this, the Defendant entrusted the instant construction work to B, and the contractor was not the Defendant but the Defendant, and there was no power of attorney to conclude the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant. The instant construction contract is null and void since it was concluded by a person without the power of attorney. Since there was no fact that the Defendant ratified it, the Defendant did not pay the construction price to the Plaintiff.