1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of KRW 153,00,000 out of the construction price, and thus, the Plaintiff completed the construction work after concluding the contract term for remodeling C construction contract located in Pyeongtaek-si B from May 6, 2016 to June 15, 2016, with the contract term of KRW 462,00,000.

2. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant prepared a construction contract for the construction work to be remodeled C located in Pyeongtaek-si B (hereinafter "the instant construction work") from May 6, 2016 to June 15, 2016. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is a contractor for the instant construction work is groundless since D was directly operated by the defendant with a construction business license granted by the defendant.

Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry prohibits another person from executing a construction work using his/her name or trade name means a case where the other person knowingly agrees or understood to use his/her trade name or trade name for the same purpose with the knowledge that he/she will perform a construction work with a qualified constructor using his/her trade name or name.

As such, all or most of subcontracted construction works in the name of any constructor were executed by any other person.

Even if the constructor himself/herself has been actually involved in the execution process, it cannot be viewed as the name lending.

I would like to say.

This is, however, whether a constructor has a substantial involvement in the execution of construction works, the details of the construction works, the promise and acceptance of the consideration, the contents of the consideration and the method of receiving it, and the agreement between the constructor and the contractor related to the execution.