The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional portions, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E (or, its representative) is the Defendants (Defendant C is the relative interest of J, E’s employee, and shareholder) who are the parties involved.

Defendant D is the wife of E. B.K.

Defendant B acquired land under the name of “E” in the contract for work with E, and executed the new construction of multi-family house by himself, and entered the appearance of the same as that of the contract for the said new construction work by Defendant B.

In other words, all contracts that the Defendants contract for construction of multi-family housing in E are invalid as a false representation in collusion.

However, the invalidity of the false indication cannot be set up against the third party acting in good faith, and the Defendants, which have the appearance of the ordering person of the new construction work, are obligated to pay the construction price to the Plaintiff (under the collection order in this case).

B. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, if the Defendants were not the nominal lender, and if each contract between the Defendants and E is null and void as a false representation, E does not have to have a claim for the construction price under each of the above contracts against the Defendants.

Therefore, it leads to the conclusion that there is no claim to be collected by the plaintiff.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the invalidity of a false labelling cannot be asserted against a bona fide third party, but the plaintiff himself/herself asserts that each of the above contracts is invalid as a false labelling.

Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion that the claim of this case was made available, as a result, the Defendants cannot oppose the Plaintiff, a bona fide third party even if each of the above contracts was a false false representation, and as a result, are liable to pay the construction cost according to the terms and conditions of each of the above contracts. However, the external appearance of the Defendants seem to have already paid the construction cost to E is.