1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from August 1, 2016 to December 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings (including facts having no dispute) in the evidence No. 1, 2, 5, and 11 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 30,00,000, after deducting the Plaintiff’s 28,965,000 won, among the above 58,965,000 won, for the remainder of KRW 58,965,00,000, the Plaintiff claimed from the Defendant for the payment of KRW 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 1, 2016 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion is merely a nominal lender of C, and the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff should claim the above construction cost, but the person who has allowed another person to conduct business using his name or trade name, is jointly and severally liable to pay to the third party who has transacted his business by misunderstanding himself as the business owner (Article 24 of the Commercial Act). The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect the third party who has transacted by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. Thus, if the other party knew or was grossly negligent in knowing the fact of the nominal lender, he is not liable. In this case, the nominal lender bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew or was negligent in finding the nominal name (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). Since there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff had been gross negligence about the fact of the nominal lender's name or omission, the above assertion by the defendant.