All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. As to whether Defendant A was actually involved in the supply and demand and execution of the instant construction work as a constructor, the gist of the grounds for appeal: (1) Defendant A entered into a direct contract with the owner of the building; (2) Defendant A was offered joint and several sureties to the owner of the building to obtain a loan for the instant construction work; (3) there was no fact that Defendant A refused, promised, or accepted the construction cost in return for the name lending of the construction license; (4) Defendant A was engaged in the same business; and (3) Defendant A paid four insurance and taxes; (4) Defendant A paid the initial funds related to the site; (3) Defendant B was waiting to pay the initial funds related to the site; (4) the remainder of the construction cost after the completion of the construction work; (5) Defendant A’s employees did not work as the head of the construction site; and (5) Defendant A was aware of the fact that the construction work was conducted in the name of Defendant A’s previous owner of the construction site after the completion of the construction work; and (4) Defendant A’s usage of the construction work in the name and management of the instant case.

2. Determination

(a)reasonable execution of relevant legal construction works;