1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from September 17, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B, as an individual entrepreneur engaged in the construction business, etc., completed the Defendant C’s business registration under the name of “D” on April 2013, and Defendant C permitted Defendant C to conduct the business by making business registration under the name of Defendant C and using it.

B. On April 17, 2013, Defendant B entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the construction of the E-ground multi-family house in the name of Defendant C (hereinafter “instant construction”) with respect to the construction of the E-ground multi-family house (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the time of Jinju, setting the construction amount of KRW 340,000,000 and the construction period from April 17, 2013 to August 23, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”). At the time, the Plaintiff misleads Defendant B as Defendant C.

C. On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted advance payment of KRW 120,000,000 to a deposit account under the name of Defendant C pursuant to the instant contract, but Defendant B did not start the instant construction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a duplicate of the instant complaint stating that the instant contract is rescinded, and the duplicate of the complaint reached Defendant B on June 20, 2013, and Defendant C on September 16, 2013, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: The fact that there is no dispute; the fact that there is no dispute; entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers); the witness B’s testimony; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, Defendant C permitted Defendant C to conduct a business by using his name or trade name, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract by misunderstanding the Defendant C as the business owner. Since the instant contract is deemed to have been lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to cancel the contract, Defendant C as the counter-party to the transaction that entered into the said contract, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act for restitution to the original state following the cancellation of the said contract.