1. The Defendant’s KRW 7.5 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from October 25, 2014 to June 17, 2015.

1. Both claims;

A. The Plaintiff, the owner of the building, arranged for the Defendant to lend his license or name to the Defendant, and made efforts to complete the instant construction work. The Plaintiff, the owner of the building, and the Korea Development Corporation, who owned a construction business license in relation to the construction of the instant construction project on the land loan outside C and three lots (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

On June 9, 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 32,50,000,00,000, such as the industrial accident insurance premium, etc. to be imposed on the said company, which is the contractor, due to the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 32.5 million to the plaintiff and the statutory damages for delay.

B. The Defendant concluded the instant agreement with the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff paid KRW 32,50,000,000,000,000 for the license loan to the Korea Development Corporation and the Korea Development Corporation, a constructor, and KRW 7,50,000 for the industrial accident employment insurance premium for the instant construction on behalf

However, the agreement on the granting of a construction license between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void in violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. ② The Plaintiff did not actually pay the license lending fee and the industrial accident employment insurance premium on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s intent to pay money under the agreement of this case should be revoked by mistake, and ③ The part on the industrial accident employment insurance premium under the agreement of this case regarding the industrial accident insurance premium should be deducted or offset by the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff on October 28, 2013.

2. Determination

A. We examine the nature of the instant agreement, and the fact that the Defendant leased a construction business license from the Maw Construction Co., Ltd. and the Maw Co., Ltd. as the contractor with the Plaintiff’s main arrangement, and the construction of the instant case was completed by designating these companies as the contractor, is without dispute between the parties, and Nos.