1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C,” engaged in road packaging construction business, etc., and registered the construction business under the name of “D”.

B. Upon the Defendant’s husband’s request, the Plaintiff completed road packaging construction work at a construction site, such as F, G, and H, and the Plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice totaling KRW 35,750,000 from June 30, 2016 to September 26, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above construction cost as the Plaintiff’s counter-party to the transaction. The Defendant asserts that there was no transaction with the Plaintiff that he had been registered as a business operator under his own name. 2) The Defendant was the legal couple, Defendant and E, and E were the legal couple, and E was the actual transaction with the Plaintiff with the business registration certificate under the name of the Defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not dispute only E at the time of the transaction, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant engaged in any transaction as the representative of the above "D". Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that only recognized facts prior to the transaction should be held liable to the plaintiff as the opposite contractual party is difficult to accept.

B. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that he/she is liable for the nominal lender’s liability under Article 24 of the Commercial Act to the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not lend the name of the business entity to E again, although he/she did not lend the name of the business entity to E again. 2) If the entire purport of the pleadings is added to the entries in Article 2 and 3 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant was sentenced to bankruptcy and exemption on May 15, 2012, and the fact that he/she did not reside with E at the latest around March 4, 2014 is recognized, and as seen earlier, the Defendant was under the name of the Defendant on April 28, 2014.