1. As to whom an actor to enter into a contract is a party in cases where the actor performs a legal act in the name of another person, the actor or the title holder shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the actor and the other party. In cases where the intent of both parties is inconsistent, if the other party is reasonable, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstances of the contract, etc., then the other party is not the party to the contract. This legal principle applies likewise to cases where the contractor, who is not registered as the contractor as the contractor and the title holder under the agreement of the parties, entered into the contract with the contractor, and the contractor entered into the contract with the contractor with the name of the contractor who is registered as the contractor as the comprehensive constructor, but the contractor is deemed as the party to the contract, such as directly performing the construction work and on its own account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da53045, May 15, 1998; 198Da3232, etc.).

The defendant planned the construction of H Hospital on F and G ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) around September 2010, who was aware that he was going together for a long time at the NG in the same Dong around the end of September 2010, and was aware that he was a member of the same church as the introduction by O.

I already known from O about the instant construction, expressed to the Defendant that he would wish to perform the instant construction, and the Defendant would assist the members who attend the same church.