1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a constructor specialized in the construction of the green studio (in order to manufacture semiconductor elements or integrated circuits) with the trade name of C, and the non-party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party D”) is a company that manufactures and sells semiconductors and flat display-related equipment.

B. Around March 23, 2012, the Defendant, as the head of the non-party company (former President), drafted a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff under which the Plaintiff will provide technical assistance and management services (hereinafter “instant services”) for the 1,2, and 3rd floor of the Madong-si Cow-si in China (hereinafter “instant Damdong-si”). From December 1, 2011 to April 30, 201, the Plaintiff will perform and pay KRW 200 million for the service cost (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that he did not have the authority to act on behalf of the non-party company in relation to the instant service contract, but the plaintiff entered into the instant service contract as an agent of the non-party company, and the plaintiff performed all of the instant services in accordance with the instant service contract. As such, the defendant is responsible for the unauthorized representative pursuant to Article 135 (1) of the Civil Act, and is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 140 million, excluding KRW 60 million paid by the non-party company out of the service cost under the instant service contract, and its delay damages.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff performed all of the instant service in accordance with the instant service contract, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise of it is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion.