All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that even if Defendant B did not perform the duty of investment pursuant to the joint project agreement with Defendant A, the partnership agreement is valid and is in a partner’s position, and Defendant A was actually involved in the construction of the steel reinforced concrete in the Chigh School practice room (hereinafter “instant construction”). Thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have lent Defendant B’s license to Defendant B (hereinafter “E”), the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact otherwise.

2. The Defendants asserted to the same effect as the lower court.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the basis of the Defendants’ and E as witness and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, based on the legal statement and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

The following circumstances can be acknowledged by evidence: (a) Defendant A stated that Defendant B was ordered to receive the instant construction work and the instant construction work, and that Defendant B would refuse it and receive personnel expenses; (b) Defendant B stated that Defendant B would not participate in the instant construction work; (c) Defendant B was unable to pay the acquisition fund at the time of the instant construction work; (d) Defendant B was not listed in the E’s shareholder registry or register; and (e) Defendant B was not listed in the person designated by Defendant B or Defendant B at the time of the transfer contract; and (d) around July 2010, G transferred E was stated to the effect that only Defendant A was known as the transferee at the time of the transfer contract; (e) Defendant B was urged to pay the acquisition fee; and (e) Defendant B was investigated by the Prosecutor at the time of the transfer contract; and (e) paid the acquisition price of E at around March 2017, which was investigated by the Prosecutor; and (e) Defendant B was performing the instant construction work in the position of its partner.

or Defendant A may not be assessed as having performed the work.

In addition, the circumstances stated by the court below are ①.