1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff operates a housing repair facility business with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant operates D (hereinafter “D”) with “D” (hereinafter “D”). The Plaintiff entered into a construction contract for the subcontract for the part of pipe replacement and installation among the instant construction works, on September 2016, under the instant construction contract, with the Defendant and the Defendant, for ① F apartment 101 Dong 1402, Suwon-si, Seoul, ② Seoul, ② the first floor of the Seocho-gu, Seoul, ④ the first floor of the Seocho-gu, Seoul, ④ the first floor of the Seocho-gu, Seoul, and ⑤ the five aggregate of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and completed each pipeline replacement and installation work under the instant construction contract on September 2016.

3) On September 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 33,00,000, which is a part of the contract price from E among the subcontractors, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant on September 13, 2016 for the remainder of the contract price of KRW 36,00,000,000, but was not paid at all by the Defendant. The Defendant is a party to the instant contract, which is a party to the instant contract, and even if the Defendant is not the actual operator of the instant company, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay from September 14, 2016, which is the date following the issuance of the tax invoice for the construction price of KRW 36,00,000, which is due to the Plaintiff’s lending of the name of the business operator under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The Defendant merely lent the name of the business registration of the instant company to Defendant L, and the substantial party to the instant construction contract is L, not the Defendant.

Since the Plaintiff was unaware of the Defendant at the time of the instant construction contract, it did not constitute a case where the Plaintiff transacted the Defendant as a business owner, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for the name truster. Furthermore, it cannot be recognized as lack of objective evidence as to the completion of construction and the amount of construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff

2. The Board;