1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant.

The plaintiff is a company that operates a construction business under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a company that operates an civil engineering work, etc.

On October 25, 2013, the defendant was awarded a contract for DNA extension works by the Office of Education and Labor.

From November 23, 2013 to December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) upon the request of co-defendant E of the first instance trial (hereinafter “E”), and completed the construction works on or around December 12, 2013. As a result, total of KRW 16,548,400 was required.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of claim for judgment as to the respective descriptions in Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 and 12 (including the virtual number), and the entire purport of the pleading as to the ground of claim was concluded with the Defendant through E, which introduced himself as the chairperson of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff who completed the instant construction work the remainder of the construction price of this case KRW 9,548,400 to the Plaintiff.

As to the conclusion of the subcontract agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant of this case, since the site manager of the construction company generally takes charge of the work related to the execution of the construction at the specific construction site, it is reasonable to deem that the construction company has a partial comprehensive power of attorney as an employee delegated with a specific type of business or specific matters under Article 15 of the Commercial Act. The scope of the work is all acts related to the conclusion of the subcontract agreement and the payment of the construction cost, and the payment of the rent thereof, etc. in addition to the materials and labor management related to the execution of the construction work.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da20884 delivered on September 30, 1994). Specific determination is based on the following circumstances: (a) Evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, 6-2 of evidence Nos. 1, 3-2 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-2 of evidence Nos. 1, 1994; and (b) E calls the Plaintiff for the instant construction work.