1. The portion of the claim for construction cost due to subrogation of creditors among the primary claims added at the trial shall be dismissed;

2...

1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On October 14, 2013, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff for the 249,335,300 won of construction cost, and entered into a voluntary subcontract with the Plaintiff for the instant construction work. The contents of the subcontract were to pay the Plaintiff the remainder 85% after deducting 15% from the total construction cost. Accordingly, from October 31, 2013 to September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction by raising the Plaintiff’s seal and material at the Plaintiff’s expense, and the Defendant, on October 15, 2014, received the payment of the construction cost from Boan-gun, as indicated below, concluded a subcontract with the Plaintiff, and there is no obligation to acknowledge that the Plaintiff should pay the remainder of the 15% subcontract price after deducting 15% of the construction cost from the Plaintiff’s total construction cost, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff the 15% subcontract price from the Plaintiff and the witness number 15%.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost based on the nominal name holder’s liability under the Commercial Act “the Defendant lent his name to D and entered into a subcontract with D in the name of the Defendant. As the Plaintiff performed the instant construction in accordance with the said contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction cost and delay damages as the nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.”

Domins, commercial law, etc.