1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2007, the Defendant and C, a co-defendant in the first instance trial, were in a de facto marital relationship, and around 2008, the Defendant newly constructed a penture D in Pyang-si around 2008, and the Defendant operated penta and C continued the construction-related business.

B. C requested the Defendant to have his business registered under the name of the Defendant around January 201, and the Defendant completed the business registration of construction business, such as general construction works, with the trade name of “E”, which is one of its own business operators on February 1, 2011.

C. On August 10, 2012, the Defendant filed a report on the closure of business with C at the competent tax office “E” on August 10, 2012.

On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract construction contract for the steel frame part (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) from May 23, 2013 to May 30, 2013 with the construction amount of KRW 24,00,000, and from May 23, 2013 to May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the subcontract contract for the steel frame part (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The trade name and name of the principal contractor column of the instant construction contract are written as “E” and “C.”

E. The Plaintiff completed the construction of the said steel frame, and on May 22, 2013, transferred KRW 10,000,000 out of the said construction cost to the Plaintiff’s Agricultural Bank account under the name of “E”.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant lent his name to C to have it conduct business in the name of the defendant, and the plaintiff concluded the construction contract of this case by misunderstanding the defendant as the business owner. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 14,00,000 as the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. In other words, at the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the Defendant had already completed a report on business closure on the business registration under the name of the Defendant, and the trade name in the instant construction contract was “E”.