1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. In light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the instant construction contract with the Defendant as the recipient of the instant construction contract, and the Plaintiff transferred part of the construction price from the Defendant, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have concluded the instant construction contract on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant upon delegation of the authority to conclude the instant construction contract from the Defendant. Even if there was no power of representation from the Defendant, considering the fact that E had a personal seal impression and the Defendant had a personal seal impression at the time of concluding the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that he had a right of representation to conclude the construction contract with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant should be held liable for the instant construction contract by expression agent under Article 12

However, as shown in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited earlier, the progress of the instant construction project and the conclusion of the instant construction contract were led by E, not the defendant, from the initial stage to the conclusion of the instant construction contract, and D, the representative of the plaintiff, was aware of the fact that the actual contractor was E, not the defendant, from the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract. D explained from E as to the fact that the instant construction cost is borne by E, not the defendant, and the plaintiff's assertion of the right to the construction cost was not made to the defendant before the institution of the instant case. On the other hand, as to E, it was demanded to prepare a written certification and a notarial deed, the instant construction contract is jointly and severally guaranteed to E mother I who