1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with the Defendant’s construction director, E, and the construction cost of KRW 108,00,000,00 with respect to the steel-frameing construction among the construction works for the construction of a new kindergarten on the ground of the Cheongju-gu Down-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. Meanwhile, in order to clarify the fact that E was merely a contractor in the form of the above corporation, E was actually performing the construction of the above kindergarten by lending a construction license from the Defendant, and on November 14, 2014, from C, “E is a de facto contractor of the above new kindergarten construction corporation,” and the Defendant is merely a contractor in the form of construction, and the construction cost, taxes and public charges incurred in the process of the construction work, and the issue of the construction laws and regulations was prepared and delivered with the purport that C is responsible for all of its liabilities, and at the time, E was jointly and severally guaranteed C.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) As the person responsible for the instant construction site, E representing the Defendant as the person responsible for the instant construction site, concluded the instant subcontract agreement with the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant should pay 8 million won and delay damages for the Plaintiff’s payment of the construction cost to the Plaintiff out of 8,270,120 won.

B) Even if the Defendant is not a party to the instant subcontract, as long as the Defendant lent a construction license to E, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said construction cost to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act. (2) Defendant Plaintiff concluded the instant subcontract with E as a party to the instant contract with the knowledge that it is the actual contractor of the instant construction project, and thus, it is not possible to seek a payment of the construction cost against the Defendant, not the contractual party, and as such, the Plaintiff knew the fact