1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the construction business, and the Defendant is the business owner of “C” (hereinafter “instant business”), which is a business entity that runs the wholesale and retail business of computers and peripheral devices, etc.

B. On September 11, 2018, Nonparty D entered into a supply contract with the Plaintiff regarding the supply and installation of cooling and heating equipment among the construction works of Pyeongtaek-si E that the Plaintiff contracted with the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The contract of this case contains the name of the subcontractor and the name of the defendant as the subcontractor, and the employee seal of the company of this case is affixed next to it.

As a result of the subcontract consideration under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant’s account (credit union F) KRW 30 million on September 14, 2018, and KRW 80 million on October 19, 2018. The Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 114 million on the total amount to the Plaintiff under the Defendant’s name.

E. D discontinued construction after performing part of the construction work under the instant contract, and the instant company was reported on and around December 31, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in case of a tentative number), Eul evidence 1, witness G testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant and paid KRW 80 million as the subcontract price. Since the Defendant ceased construction work in an amount equivalent to KRW 20 million until November 7, 2018, then the construction work was suspended, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff KRW 60 million out of the subcontract price.

B. Even if the defendant lent the name of the business owner D to D, the plaintiff is responsible for returning the above KRW 60 million to the plaintiff as the nominal owner pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, since the plaintiff trades the defendant with the mistake as the business owner of the business of this case.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant’s objection.