1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The summary of the parties’ assertion: (a) on January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff: (b) concluded a unit price contract for the sales of a closed-type unit that the Plaintiff would revert to the Plaintiff when Nonparty B and B request the Plaintiff on the same day, to purchase 180,000 km from January 3, 2014 to December 31, 2015, in the course of operating a nuclear power plant; (c) paid KRW 19,008,000 as the contract deposit to the Plaintiff; and (d) concluded a unit price contract for the sales of the closed-type unit that the Plaintiff would revert to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her contractual obligation without justifiable grounds; and (e) on the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a letter of intent to pay the contract deposit of KRW 19,008,000 without delay.

On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff sold to B the waste c1,827,840 won, but B paid only KRW 7,00,000 out of the purchase price, and did not pay the remainder KRW 24,827,840.

Accordingly, on July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff terminated the unit price contract for the sale of the closed rental market.

Therefore, B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 24,827,840, and the contract deposit of KRW 19,008,00,00,000, as well as damages for delay.

However, B is a representative under the name of “C”, and the actual representative of “C” is the defendant who is the child of “C”.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the balance to the plaintiff.

Defendant: The Defendant, from “C” managed by his father to the vice president, has attempted to perform the business of “C” and has not actually run the “C” by lending his name from “C”.

2. Determination

A. It is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s actual manager of “C” is a person who borrows the name of the representative of “C” from Nonparty B, or a health stand in compliance with the foregoing provision.

On the other hand, according to the statements in Gap evidence 7 and 8, the defendant remitted part of the purchase price to the bank account in his name through the bank account in his name, and the defendant.