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. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff concluded a verbal contract with Nonparty D on-site Director who represented the Defendant on the cost of construction KRW 10,000,000 of the cost of construction, among the new construction works of building C located under the direct management of the Defendant, with respect to the outer wall waterproofing construction and the interior aesthetic construction works, and completed the construction.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above construction cost to the plaintiff.

B. Even if the Defendant and D were to be related to the contractor, at the time of concluding the contract with D, the Defendant entered into a direct payment agreement with the subcontractor to the effect that “the owner shall directly settle each process cost after consultation with the contractor.”

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above construction cost to the plaintiff as the subcontractor.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the entries in the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether D signed a construction contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant constructed a new building in Incheon City and completed the construction on December 10, 2018. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was sufficient to recognize that D had the authority to act for the Defendant, and that it concluded a contract for a waterproof construction project on external walls among the new construction works on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

[In light of the evidence evidence No. 1, the defendant and D appear to be related to the owner (contractor) who entered into a contract for construction works and the contractor (contractor). It is difficult to view D as the defendant's field director or agent. This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant and D agreed that “the owner (the Defendant) shall pay the costs for each process after consultation with the contractor (D) at the time of entering into the construction contract, in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the subcontract price in accordance with the direct payment agreement.”