1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 36,587,00,00 per annum from September 1, 2017 to September 5, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the trade name of “D”, and the Defendants have completed business registration under Defendant B’s name with the trade name of “E” and are engaged in each interior work.

B. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with F to receive a contract, setting the price of KRW 239 million on April 19, 2017 (which was extended by June 9, 2017) and the price of which was KRW 200,000,000,000 from the date of commencement of the construction work for interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior G (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. The Plaintiff again ordered the Defendants to perform the instant construction work on the same day.

A contract with a subcontract cycle (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with a period, 162,400,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”) as stated in paragraph (d) determined by subtracting some furniture and roof construction, and adding some construction works, to 19,5460,000,000 won.

From April 17, 2017 to May 13, 2017, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants a sum of KRW 17,946,00,000 as the price.

E. On June 10, 2017, the Defendants discontinued construction works and recovered at the construction site of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, 8, 9, part of Gap 14, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant C’s defense prior to the merits is merely an employee of “E” and thus, Defendant C did not have any standing to be the employee.

However, it is found in the front and rear that the Defendants had carried out the artificial park construction business with the trade name of “E”, and in the lawsuit for performance such as this case, the Plaintiff has the standing to be the defendant in the lawsuit for performance, so Defendant C’s prior defense on the merits is without merit.

3. Determination on the assertion that Defendant B is only the nominal lender of the name

A. The gist of the assertion was that Defendant B, from January 2016, maintained a de facto marital relationship with Defendant C and only lent his/her business registration name to Defendant C.

The plaintiff is the defendant C.