Liability of the subcontractor who has permitted the mutual use of the name;

If the contractor of the original construction allows the subcontractor to use the trade name of the contractor in addition to the execution of the subcontract, the contractor should be mistaken for the contractor as the contractor of the original construction and be responsible for the transaction to the third party.

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da642 delivered on November 27, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 10591Da10591 delivered on November 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 213Da185 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 24(6)718 delivered on November 27, 197, Supreme Court Gazette 480No7647 delivered on

Plaintiff 1 and 10 others

Defendant Construction Company

Original Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (76Gahap9, Counsel for the defendant)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected on the portion on which the execution has not been declared in the original judgment under paragraph (1).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 4,857,00 won, 100 won per annum to the same 2, 300 won, 45,000 won to the same 4, 16,000 won to the same 5, 38,360 won to the same 6, 12,000 won to the same 7, 23,000 won to the same 8, 480,000 won to the same 9, 22,500 won to the same 10, 100 won to the same 10, 100 won to the same 5,000 won to the 3,000 won to the same 4,000 won to the remaining 11,00 won to the 10,000 won to the 10,000 won to the 10,010,000 won to the 14,005.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The plaintiff et al.'s claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

Around May 1975, as a company engaged in the business of obtaining contracts for the construction of civil engineering and construction works from the country, with a contract amount of 23,508,127 won for the construction of national forest road facilities from the Dong-gu, Young-gu, Gangwon-do to the Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and with a contract amount of 23,508,127 won, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the above construction works are implemented from the 30th of the same month, and the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2 (Agreement and Certificate No. 3), 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, 5 and 6-1, 7, 8, 9 (Written Request), 10 through 12 (No evidence No. 12), 10-12, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, and 1-1, the list of the above witness and 1-3-2.

First, the plaintiff et al. asserts that the non-party 1, as a general manager at the construction site of the defendant company, engaged in each transaction on behalf of the plaintiff et al. on behalf of the plaintiff et al., and that the defendant company is obligated to perform the above obligations. Thus, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, as executive director at the above construction site of the defendant company, cannot believe some of the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5 of the trial witness at the court below, or the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5 of the trial witness at the court below, cannot be considered as a document to recognize it, and the non-party 1, as seen next, can be recognized as being merely a sub-party 1, a sub-party 1, who was awarded a subcontract from the defendant company to the above construction site,

Second, even if the defendant company ordered the above construction work to the non-party 1, the defendant company argued that the non-party 1 was responsible for paying each of the above debts to the plaintiff et al. who transacted with the non-party 1 using the above construction work's trade name. Thus, the defendant company is jointly and severally responsible for paying the above debts to the non-party 1, who used the above construction work's trade name, so the non-party 4 (on-site confirmation) and the non-party 13 (meat), which can be recognized as authenticity by the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, 4, 6, and the non-party 5, and the non-party 3, who used the above construction work's trade name, and the non-party 1 had the non-party 1, who used the above construction work's new construction work's name and notified the non-party 1 to use the above construction work's new construction work's name and work's name to the non-party 1 as soon as possible.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 11 the interest or delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum, which is civil interest rate, from March 7, 1976 to the date following the day on which the copy of this case is delivered to the defendant, as sought by the above plaintiff et al. as to each of the remaining principal of the obligations stated in the separate sheet. The plaintiff 11 is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the interest or delay damages at the rate of 90,000 won per annum, which is the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act (the excess rate shall be null and void) from the borrowing date to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s claim against the plaintiff et al. seeking this payment shall be justified and the judgment of the court below is just and reasonable, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the expenses shall be assessed against the plaintiff, and the provisional execution shall be applied by the sentence of Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Act as per the order of provisional execution.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)