1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Of the construction works of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-B, the construction cost of KRW 54,00,000 for metal construction and the construction cost of KRW 26,00,000 for the second construction cost, KRW 13,00,000 for the third construction cost, KRW 32,00,000 for the fourth construction cost and KRW 32,000 for the fourth construction cost, and the construction subcontract agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant D for the interior area of KRW 83,00,000 for the construction cost of December 2, 2015, respectively.

B. On July 6, 2016, the Defendants filed an order with the Plaintiff to pay the construction cost of KRW 55,00,000,000 with the Seoul Central District Court on July 6, 2016, with respect to the remainder of each of the above construction cost, and issued an order to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 29,695,850, and interest interest thereon, etc. to Defendant C, and served the Plaintiff on October 1, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence 1 to 7, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the above corporations is the parties to each of the above corporations, as the Plaintiff’s Kakain B purchased the land under the Plaintiff’s name and purchased the land.

Even if the plaintiff is regarded as a contracting party, the construction cost claimed by the defendants as the payment order is based on the false contract made voluntarily (the construction cost is limited to the defendant C59,587,000 won and the defendant D's 41,980,000 won) and the compensation amount for the damage caused by the defect repair is also 100,842,000 won, and the compulsory execution based on each of the above payment orders should be denied.

There is no evidence to prove that B concluded each of the above construction contracts with the Plaintiff lending the Plaintiff’s name as to the assertion on the parties to the contract, and even so, it is merely an internal relationship between B and the Plaintiff. Thus, there was a mutual agreement between B and the Defendants, not the Plaintiff, the contracting name, but the contracting party B.

(b).