The Defendants did not pay the above fine.

No constructor shall have another person execute construction works by using his/her name or trade name, and no person shall be the other party.

Defendant A, who operates (ju) E in Gu, U.S. Si, had B perform the construction of an urban-type residential housing in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F under the name of (E) E between August 22, 2011 and December 2011, and Defendant B performed the said new construction work as the other party to A.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The standard contract for private construction works, Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 21 million won, and investigation report (related to submission of a complaint) entered into a contract with G with G to reduce acquisition tax or registration tax, etc., and Defendant B demanded Defendant B to lend the name of the business owner holding a comprehensive construction business license to Defendant A to use the name of the business owner holding the comprehensive construction business license, and Defendant B requested Defendant B to use the name of the business owner holding the construction business license, but Defendant A expressed a difficult color with concerns over the issue of granting a license loan, and Defendant B was entrusted with the 200 million won in the tegypt and Defendant B was entrusted with the tegypt. In this purport, Defendant B entered into a contract with G and Defendant with additional 200 million won, and then Defendant B did not use the tegypt work until the construction work is interrupted due to disputes between G and Defendant A, but it was not necessary to use the name of the business owner to use the Ga to use the name of the former part after the settlement between Defendant B and Defendant B and the changed part of the contract.