1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the product supply contract (Evidence A 1), the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 89,309,671, which remains after deducting KRW 53,656,350, which was paid by the Ambasi Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Ambasi Construction Co., Ltd. in relation to the Ambasi Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”) in relation to the Ambasi Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”), and won the judgment was rendered on June 18, 2014. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant lent the name of the KGGGGG and carried out civil engineering works among the instant construction works, supplied the AGG in accordance with the defendant's order, and the defendant paid the purchase price (the KGGGG shall be deemed to have closed the construction project) and filed the lawsuit in this case.

2. As to the confirmation of a contracting party to a sales contract, if the intentions of both parties agree, the parties to the contract shall be determined according to the same intentions, and if the parties fail to agree upon any reasonable person is determined based on the detailed circumstances before and after the contract, such as the nature, contents, purpose, and details of the contract, if any, of the parties to the sales contract;

(대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 97다22089 판결 등 참조). 원고는 그 주장 자체로도 전소(前訴) 전까지는 ㈜삼경건설을 계약 상대방으로 알았다는 것이고{전소에서 ㈜삼경건설은 이 사건 물품 거래는 피고 개인과 원고의 거래라는 취지로 주장하였으나, 위 주장은 배척되었음), 계약 내용을 처분문서의 서면으로 작성하였으며, ㈜삼경건설에 세금계산서를 발행하고 미수대금을 관리하기까지 한 이상(갑2∽4, 가지번호 포함), 원고와 ㈜삼경건설 사이의 물품공급계약은 유효하게 성립하여 이에 따라 거래가 이루어 진 것으로 봄이 옳다.

In the end, the plaintiff shall not be authorized by the defendant in the name of the Sejong Metropolitan City Construction Bank.