1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the cause of claim;

A. On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C, the agent of the Defendant Company, and Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, for the remodeling construction of the building located in D, the amount of which is KRW 3,00,000,000.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 28,00,000 to the Defendant Company as the above construction cost, and separately, the Defendant C paid the credit card payment amount of KRW 2,602,670 by having the Defendant C deliver and use the Plaintiff’s credit card instead of paying the said construction cost.

C. However, the Defendant Company suspended construction after completing only 10-15% of the total process of the said construction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, upon the delivery of the complaint in this case, sought payment of KRW 30,602,670, the total amount of the construction cost and credit card payment already paid to the original state through the cancellation of the said contract, and the Defendant Company is primarily liable to pay the said money as a party to the said contract in accordance with the legal principles of representation (Article 114(1) of the Civil Act) or representation representation (Article 126 of the Civil Act).

Even if the defendant company is not a party to the above contract, the defendant C was aware of the above money from the plaintiff after the conclusion of the above contract by deceiving the plaintiff as if it was the representative of the defendant company. Thus, the defendant C is a preparatory tortfeasor (Article 750 of the Civil Act) and the defendant C is obligated to pay the above money as the user of the defendant C (Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act).

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1- 3 (including virtual number) as to the assertion of liability for representation or expression agency, the defendant C prepared and delivered a written estimate (Evidence No. 1-2) of Chapter II as to the above construction work and the head of title A (Evidence No. 1-3) as to additional construction work outside the construction work. In this process, the defendant C issued the name cards stated as the director of the defendant corporation to the plaintiff, but on the other hand, it is recognized that the above documents were issued to the plaintiff.