A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the descriptions in subparagraphs 3 through 6 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract on September 30, 2014 with respect to construction of machinery and fire-fighting equipment among the construction works of Defendant Asia Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) from September 30, 2014 to February 10, 2014; the construction period of construction shall be KRW 170,000,000 (value-added tax separate), and the construction amount shall be KRW 10,000 (value-added tax separate), and the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant Company on September 30, 2014 at the end of each month at the end of each month to pay in cash the construction price of the large-level payment. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction works within the said construction period; the Plaintiff received the total of KRW 141,00,000 from the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff did not receive the remainder of KRW 46,000,00.

B. Article 24 of the Commercial Act is a provision to protect the interests of the other party who trades with a person who borrowed the name as the principal agent of the business, and accordingly, the nominal lender is jointly and severally liable to pay the debt that the nominal lender bears in the course of performing the business transaction, and the other party's assertion and burden of proof as to the fact that the nominal lender has been aware of the fact of the nominal name or was grossly negligent.

With respect to the instant case, there is no assertion or proof by the Defendant Company as to the fact that the Defendant Company was the nominal owner of the instant subcontract as seen earlier, and that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff regarding the fact that the Defendant Company was aware of or was unaware of the fact that it was a mere nominal owner of the instant subcontract. As such, the Defendant Company did not assert or prove that the Plaintiff was the nominal owner of the instant subcontract, and that there was a copy of the instant complaint from May 1, 2015, which was sought by the Plaintiff, as the nominal owner of the instant subcontract,