1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is engaged in building temporary materials leasing business with the trade name called C, and the defendant is engaged in the building business with the trade name of D.

On May 5, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the lease of temporary construction materials with E and F, and supplied permanent construction materials to the G site where E and F were in progress (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

Since then, E and F suspended the above construction, and H (Separate Name I) acquired the above construction in the name of D on July 11, 2016.

H entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff under the name of D on July 13, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the instant construction site, H acquired the Plaintiff’s construction snow materials at the instant construction site.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings.

Plaintiff’s assertion

H entered into a contract for the lease of new construction costs with the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s agent or sub-agent, and even if the Defendant did not grant H the right of representation, the Defendant is liable to perform the contractual obligations of this case in accordance with the express representation provision under the Civil Act.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay KRW 42,602,901 to the Plaintiff for the rent for the temporary construction from May 6, 2016 to October 27 of the same year.

Judgment

We examine whether the Defendant conferred the power of representation to H as to the conclusion of the instant contract.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, witness H and J’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the seal of the D representative director is affixed to the goods lease agreement prepared by the Plaintiff and H, but H testified that the said seal was voluntarily created and there is no evidence to confirm that the said seal was the Defendant; ② H was permitted by J to order the construction work that was being carried out at the construction site of this case in the name of D, and the Defendant, the representative of D, either via J or directly, to use that name.