The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,552,00,00.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except that the portion related to “related (general conditions)” is deemed as “related (general conditions)”. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary assertion that Defendant B leased the construction business license to Defendant C, and caused Defendant C to enter into the instant contract under the name of Defendant B.

Since the contract of this case was lawfully terminated, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff as a contracting party, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of this case 201,000,000 won (excluding value added tax) paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant B due to restitution to its original state, ② KRW 24,52,000 as compensation for delay (the contract price of KRW 528,00,000 x the number of delayed x 93 days x 0.5/1,000 x the number of delayed delay x 93 days x 0.5/1,000), and the total amount of KRW

B. If Defendant B and Defendant C are not related to the name lending, and Defendant B are the genuine parties to the instant contract, Defendant B and the contractual party are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 225,552,00 and delay damages with the restitution and delay damages following the termination of the instant contract, and Defendant C and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation to the Plaintiff, thereby jointly and severally paying the above amount to the Plaintiff.

(On the other hand, since Defendant B failed to fulfill its duty of due care to prevent the diversion of the work price of Defendant C, which is a field agent, Defendant C, the user of Defendant C, is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff).3.

A. 1 Generally determining the primary argument constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of a party involved in the contract, who is the party to the contract.

The interpretation of declaration of intention shall be made by the parties to the act of indication.