A. On December 2012, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for the 49,500,000 won (including value-added tax) for the Korea Urban Gas Pipelines Corporation of Changwon-si, Changwon-si and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant construction”).

On January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work.

On February 6, 2013, the Defendant issued, to the Plaintiff, a promissory note (hereinafter “instant note”) that was the Defendant as the Defendant for the payment of the construction cost of the instant construction project, at the issuer two comprehensive construction companies, at the face value of KRW 49,50,000, and the due date on May 31, 2013.

The plaintiff presented the bill of this case to pay at the due date, but the payment was refused due to the issuer's default.

Therefore, as a person who subcontracted the instant construction to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 49,500,000 to the Plaintiff or to pay KRW 49,50,000 as an endorser of the Promissory Notes.

B. The Plaintiff lent the business name to Defendant E, and the Defendant lent the business name to F.

The instant construction project was subcontracted to E by the F, and the Plaintiff was also aware of such a name lending relationship.

Therefore, since creditors due to the construction of this case are E, not the plaintiff, and the debtor is F, not the defendant, they cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for construction cost.

In addition, since the endorsement of the bill in the name of the defendant was forged by F, the plaintiff's demand for the amount of the bill cannot be complied with.

2. Determination

A. As there is no dispute between the two parties that the construction of this case was completed, we examine whether the party to the construction of this case is the party.

B. (1) The fact of recognition (1) E is an employee of a petition industry development company (hereinafter “petition industry development”) until July 26, 2012, and is subscribed to the National Pension Scheme. From November 5, 2012, E is also an employee of the Plaintiff’s National Pension Scheme and four major insurance, including national pension, and the Plaintiff’s intra-company director on November 13, 2012.