1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 12 million from October 2016 to March 2017 and the delay damages therefor.

B. A lessee of the instant commercial building from the Plaintiff is not the Defendant but the Defendant’s mother D.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the rent to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a juristic act, which becomes a problem in the interpretation of the intention of the parties, the contents of the juristic act, motive and background of such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the genuine intention of the parties, etc. shall be comprehensively

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212 Decided January 25, 2018, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Da25699 Decided January 17, 2019, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da25699).

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff and the defendant prepared on August 3, 2015 a lease contract (hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract in the defendant's name") between the plaintiff and the defendant on the condition that "the plaintiff leases the commercial building of this case to the defendant," and it is recognized that the defendant has participated in a certain part of the contract by ordering or collecting money from the customer with regard to the operation of the restaurant in this case.

C. On the other hand, the following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff: “The Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building to D” between the Defendant’s mother and D, eight days after the establishment of the Defendant’s name lease agreement.