1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on November 7, 2014, subcontracted to the Defendant for the construction work amounting to KRW 660,000,000 of the construction work price among the construction works of Jung-up B apartment (Evidence A 6; hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

2) However, as the Plaintiff did not pay a total of KRW 100,000,00 on behalf of the Defendant as a party to the instant subcontract, the Defendant, as a party to the instant subcontract, has a duty to claim reimbursement of the total of KRW 100,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the Defendant.

3) Even if the Defendant was not a party to the instant subcontract, as long as the Defendant lent a construction business license to C, the Defendant is obligated to claim reimbursement of the total amount of KRW 100 million for the said construction work as the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act. (B) As to the issue of who is a party to the instant subcontract in cases where the actor who entered into the instant legal doctrine as to the existence of liability as the party to the instant subcontract is a legal act in another’s name and the actor or nominal owner is deemed the party to the contract, the actor or nominal owner should be determined as the party to the contract according to the same intent if the actor and the other party agree with each other. If the other party fail to agree with each other, on the basis of the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, etc. of the contract, and the title holder under the contract is always the party to the contract, and such legal doctrine is not always the party to the contract, but it directly executes the construction work.