1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. A. D delegated the authority to participate in the site site consultations and tendering procedures on the E Work (hereinafter “instant construction”) from Defendant B Limited Partnership (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) upon delegation of the authority to participate in the site consultations on the E Work (hereinafter “instant construction”). On August 2012, the said construction was awarded in the name of the Defendant Company.

B. D, which ordered the instant construction, paid only the name lending fee to the Defendant Company and performed the said construction on its own account.

C. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 45,000,000 to the deposit account in the name of Defendant C, the representative of the Defendant Company, at the request of D to lend construction costs related to the instant construction.

The above KRW 45,00,000 deposited in the deposit account in Defendant C’s name was paid as labor costs related to the construction site of this case.

【Legal basis for recognition】 Evidence A and Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D’s testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff constitutes a nominal lender under the Commercial Act who lent the name of the Defendant Company to D, and thus, the Plaintiff is responsible for repaying the loan to D.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the aforementioned evidence, namely, the Plaintiff and D had been aware of for not less than 25 years, while the Plaintiff and Defendant C had no relations with each other. The Plaintiff wired KRW 45,000,00 to Defendant C’s account without being aware of it, but did not receive a loan certificate or receipt under the name of the Defendant Company or Defendant C while transferring the said money to the Defendant C’s account without being aware of it. This appears very exceptional in light of the general transaction concept if the said remittance is premised on the premise that it is a loan between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the Plaintiff did not have any contact with the Defendant Company for a more than one year prior to sending a certificate of content as of May 16, 2014, and D borrowed money from the Plaintiff.