2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 2017, D, the husband of the Plaintiff who entered into a construction contract, concluded, on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant C and the Defendant Company, the actual owner of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, and completed the contract from October 11, 2017 to November 11, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 55,905,875 as material cost, etc., and the Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 50 million as the reduced construction cost to the Plaintiff’s agent D around December 2, 2017.

C. The Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the Defendant Company was actually established around September 2017, and Defendant C, the actual owner of which, concluded an indoor interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction contract on behalf of the Defendant Company, was obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant C.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants of the indoor interior interior interior interior decoration construction contract asserted that they did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff, and Defendant C entered into an indoor interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction contract with D only.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the husband D signed the contract with the defendant C on behalf of the plaintiff.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 22 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same) and the purport of the entire pleadings, defendant C PlaintiffD’s trade name, “E,” but was well aware that only the name of the individual businessman was a “Plaintiff” as a result of the business necessity, and thus, the parties to the indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration contract concluded by the defendant C appears to be “D” rather than the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is a party to the indoor interior interior decoration contract concluded with the defendant C is without merit.

(1) Indoor with Defendant C.