The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of the legal principle) is that the E-stock company made a lump sum subcontract to A after being awarded a contract for kindergarten construction work from B, and there is no fact

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are revealed: ① AF kindergarten located in Seongbuk-gu AE (hereinafter referred to as “AE kindergarten”) was contracted to A and the construction area was added to 50 square meters, which requires a construction business license; ② A was subject to a disposition of a fine for negligence due to this, upon finding the office of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) on January 17, 201, and requested the Defendant to grant a license; ③ The agreement entered into between the Defendant and B states that “the contractor shall pay an amount equivalent to 30 million won of the value of supply; ③ all expenses, insurance premiums, etc. arising from the performance of the contract are borne by the contractor; ④ The Defendant and A shall prepare a standard form of construction works under which “E is subcontracted to UAE corporation; ⑤ The Defendant and A shall deposit the money in the name of the head of the Tong and the head of the Tong in the name of the Tong immediately after deposit the money in the name of E and the head of the Tong under the name of the Tong.

B. According to the above facts, the agreement between B and E, and the subcontract between E and U are merely prepared to have A perform the AE kindergarten construction work by lending the E license, and it cannot be deemed that E made a lump sum subcontract to A. Thus, the defendant receives a contract for construction work using the trade name of E.