A. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendants for the new construction of multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant building”) with KRW 372,00,000,000.

B. On May 31, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant building and delivered it to the Defendants around that time. The Defendants completed the registration of initial ownership of the instant building on June 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the agreed construction cost of KRW 302,00,000 (=the agreed construction cost of KRW 372,00,000; KRW 70,000,000).

B. Defendants 1) Since the substantive parties to the instant construction contract are E, the Defendants are not the Defendants, the Defendants are not obligated to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Defendants are the parties to the instant construction contract, the construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff when deducting the repair cost, etc. (i.e., the agreed construction cost of KRW 372,00,000,000 - KRW 160,000,000 - 33,068,678, - design and supervision cost of KRW 3,310,000 - The 67,636,36363) is merely limited.

3. Determination

A. As to who is the party to the instant construction contract where the actor, who was a party to the contract, committed a legal act in the name of another person, is the party to the contract, first of all, when the intent of the actor and the other party is consistent, the offender or the nominal person shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the same intent. If the other party does not coincide with the intent of the actor and the other party, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature of the contract, the content of the contract, and the process of concluding the contract, etc.,

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on May 29, 2001