A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff is the Yangyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Yangyang Construction”).

) Of the extension works between Busan and B, the upper bridge structure works (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”).

(2) The Defendant C and the Defendant concluded a contract to re-subcontract the instant construction work on September 2, 2016. (2) Defendant C leased the Plaintiff’s name and supplied the instant construction work to the public.

On September 2, 2016, the defendant only lent a name in preparing a construction agreement on the instant construction work upon D's request, and the contracting parties are D.

The above contract that the plaintiff asserts is concluded between C and D.

Even if the other party who entered into a contract with D is the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is not liable for the nominal lender, as the Defendant knew or knew that the name was lent to D.

B. Determination 1) Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the party has given to the expression in the expression, and in cases where the content of a contract is written in writing between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning that the party has given to the expression in writing, regardless of the party’s intent, should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written regardless of the party’s intent. In such cases, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent must be recognized as a whole, barring any special circumstance. 2) The following facts may be acknowledged

The construction of this case is ordered by the Busan Metropolitan Government Construction Headquarters, and the construction of both lots is contracted.