2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

The construction of the building of this case (hereinafter "the construction of this case") was contracted to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E") around April 30, 2013 as the owner of the building of the building in Daejeon PD building (hereinafter "the building of this case") located in Seosung-gu, Daejeon.

Around May 30, 2013 between KR’s representative director K and the Defendant’s ASEAN, there was a contract that K subcontracts subcontracts the instant construction work to the Defendant (mutual F) (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

I, from the beginning of June 2013 to the end of June 2013, as the site manager of the instant construction project, performed the said construction project, and was supplied with materials for the construction from the Sung Civil Complex Co., Ltd. and used the temporary materials from the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.

[Grounds for recognition] The Defendant, the business owner of F in summary of the plaintiffs' assertion in the whole purport of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 9 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of witness I of the first instance and the first instance trial, J of the trial of the party concerned, L's testimony, and the whole argument of the parties concerned, was involved in the instant construction by entering into a subcontract for the instant construction from E in a lump sum and directly or through J, the agent.

The Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of construction materials with the Plaintiff’s General Commercial Corporation and the Plaintiff’s temporary materials lease contract with the Plaintiff through J or the Defendant’s On-Site Director I, who is an agent, and received the supply of construction materials and temporary materials.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 5,447,860 won for the goods to the Formal Master Company Co., Ltd., and 21,375,000 won for temporary materials rent to the plaintiff A.

No interpreter did the Defendant conclude a direct contract with the Plaintiffs.

Even if the Defendant permitted the use of his business name to J or I, who is the head of the field office, who is the child, and the Plaintiffs were mistaken for the Defendant, who is the business operator of the subcontractor of the instant construction project, as the business owner.