1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction work of Samju Factory Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant new construction work”) in the amount of KRW 2,728,00,000 for the construction work cost, from Samju Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant new construction work”).

B. On February 17, 2014, the Defendant entered into a blanket subcontract with Nonparty C to KRW 1,660,000,000 for the entire new construction works of this case.

C. C performed the instant new construction work in accordance with the above package subcontract with the Defendant, and C’s certificate of career as a construction engineer C from February 17, 2014

8. up to 17. It is stated that it has been employed as a field agent in charge of the field management of the new construction site of this case.

On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was supplied with the Defendant, issued a tax invoice of KRW 63,800,000 for the construction cost of the US and waterproof Construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the new construction works in the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. On April 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the subcontract was made orally with C, which is the Defendant’s on-site agent (or on-site agent) and determined as KRW 63,800,000 (including value-added tax) for the construction work of this case. C, as the Defendant’s on-site agent, has the authority to conclude and pay the subcontract related to the construction work of this case on behalf of the Defendant. As such, the contract on the construction of this case extends to the Defendant.

In addition, even if the defendant ordered C to collectively subcontract the new construction of this case, in order to conceal the existence of illegal comprehensive subcontract agreement, the defendant had to allow C to use the name of the defendant in implementing the new construction of this case. Therefore, it should be held liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant.