1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Defendant C: (a) KRW 19,440,246 to the Plaintiff and its related expenses on February 2018.

In the first instance trial, the plaintiff filed a claim for delayed prize along with a claim for damages in lieu of defective repair, and the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim for delayed prize.

Since the plaintiff appealed only on each part of the above claim for damages among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim for delayed prize in the lawsuit of this case was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with Defendant C with respect to the construction of the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the 2,3th floor of the Seoul D Ground Building (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) during the construction period from November 1, 2016 to December 27, 2016, and with the construction cost of KRW 140,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff moved into the instant building upon completion of the instant construction.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including various numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction of this case occurred, and Defendant B indicated it as the representative director on the website of “F”, and introduced Defendant C, a designer affiliated to F, to the Plaintiff, while attending the meeting and visiting the site, etc., as the parties to the instant contract with Defendant C, which are joint contractors of the instant construction, and thus, the contractor is liable for damages in lieu of the repair of defects to the Plaintiff, a contractor.

Even if Defendant B is not a party to the instant contract, the Defendant B permitted Defendant C, an employee, to use the “F” one’s own trade name, and thus, Defendant B is liable to the Plaintiff as a nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 27 through 32, 71, Eul No. 15, 17, 19, and