1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. From July 4, 2013 to September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) performed a drainage system construction among the public sewerage maintenance projects in the Chungcheong-gun B District; (b) the contractor of the said construction works is Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the contractor is the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 13 (including Gaz.), Eul evidence No. 1

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s authorized representative concluded a contract with C for the construction of the drainage system, and the construction was carried out. C is a representative of the Defendant, or the Defendant ratified the act of unauthorized representation by C, and the Defendant is liable to pay the construction price for the completed construction work.

The plaintiff is recognized as having been carrying out the construction work at the above construction site at the request of C, but it is not sufficient to recognize that C was the defendant's agent or the defendant confirmed the act of unauthorized representation of C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and witness D's testimony, the defendant subcontracted the whole part of the contracted construction work to the non-party Taesan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Taesan Construction"), the above Taesan Construction re-subcontract subcontracted the part of the drainage system construction during the above construction work to E, and it is recognized that Eul had C carry out the drainage system construction at the above construction site and thereby the plaintiff carried out the above construction work accordingly. In light of the above subcontracting circumstances, it cannot be said that C has the authority to act on behalf of the defendant.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that C is the Defendant’s expressive agent, and that C has a reasonable ground to believe that C had the right of representation against the Defendant, and that the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff under the Civil Act’s expressive agent clause.

The plaintiff is an expression agent of the Civil Code.