1. The plaintiff's successor's appeal is dismissed.

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

purport.

1. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the following addition of Paragraph 2 is deducted.

(1) The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff had a duty to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff as compensation for non-performance of the obligation, since the Defendant did not perform the construction of soil work equivalent to KRW 5 billion in accordance with the instant commitment, but the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was obligated to pay KRW 37,38 as compensation for damages. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor submitted additional documents at the trial by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor at the trial alone did not have any other evidence, and there is no other evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff’s assertion by the succeeding intervenor should be held liable as an unauthorized Agent because the Plaintiff’s assertion by the succeeding intervenor was prepared by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff without any authority, taking full account of the overall purport of the arguments as stated in subparagraphs 8 and 9 of Articles 135 of the Civil Act, and thus, it can be recognized that the Defendant was well aware that the Plaintiff was not entitled to represent or act on behalf of the Plaintiff in connection with the preparation of the instant commitment.

2. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor paid a penalty equivalent to twice the agreed amount to the Plaintiff when the F enters into the instant agreement pursuant to Article 5 of the instant agreement, and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to provide the Plaintiff with soil construction works equivalent to KRW 5 billion pursuant to the instant agreement. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor is liable to pay KRW 200 million, which is part of the penalty for breach of contract. However, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4, the parties to the instant agreement are the Plaintiff and F, and the nonperformance of the instant agreement does not constitute the cause of penalty for breach of contract, and thus is related to the instant agreement.