1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000 and KRW 10,000 among them,00,000 from August 24, 2015, and KRW 45,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a “standard contract for construction design of a building” with the purpose of constructing D commercial housing (site location: Incheon Western-gu D) between Defendant B and set the contract amount at KRW 10 million.

B. On July 2015, with respect to the new construction of D store houses between Defendant B, the Plaintiff prepared a standard construction contract with the Plaintiff as “construction period: (a) the start of construction; (b) July 2015; (c) December 2015; (d) the contract amount: 450,000,000 won; and (d) “Advance payment: 10,000,000 won at the time of concluding the contract”.

(hereinafter referred to as the above new store housing construction works in this case)

According to the above contract, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million on August 24, 2015, and KRW 45 million on August 31, 2015 to the Defendant C’s account registered as the E’s representative.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (i) The main point of the claim against Defendant C is ① the Defendants jointly operated, or ② Defendant C filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants were the nominal lender.

As to this, Defendant C only lent the name of the representative to Defendant B, but there is no room for actually participating in the construction contract, and thus, Defendant C’s claim under the premise that Defendant C operated Defendant C as a partnership business is improper, and the Plaintiff knew of the fact that Defendant C was only the nominal lender, and thus, the Plaintiff did not bear the responsibility of the nominal lender.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants engaged in the same business as E, so the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted based on the premise that the Defendants engaged in the same business relationship.

⑶ 명의대여자로서 책임을 부담하는지 여부에 대한 판단 ㈎ 상법 제24조는 "타인에게 자기의 성명 또는 상호를 사용하여...