1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 30, 2015 to March 22, 2016, and the following.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the following facts: Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 6, and Gap evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The plaintiff is a person engaged in stone construction business under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a representative director of D Co., Ltd. established for building construction business, civil engineering business, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "D").

B. The Plaintiff was entrusted with tin construction among the construction of the F plant in the East Metal Industry F plant, Inc., Ltd., the site director of D, and sent a written estimate of supply value of E on December 20, 2014, which is KRW 41,595,400.

C. Therefore, on December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant with the amount of KRW 37,000,000,00.

However, at the time, the Defendant stated that “the construction cost will be paid upon the completion of the F plant of the Dong-dong Metal Industry F&M, a new construction company,” but the Defendant was using the bond amounting to KRW 1 billion from the bond company due to the enemy’s occurrence in the process of operating D, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any intent or ability to pay the construction cost properly even if the tin was awarded the contract.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff completed tin construction as stipulated in the above construction contract, but did not receive KRW 22,00,000 out of the construction price from the Defendant.

F. A person, including the Plaintiff, who received construction from D, filed a complaint with an investigative agency by fraud against the Defendant’s act of awarding construction work to the Plaintiff, etc. without any intent or ability to pay the construction cost, and accordingly, the Defendant was indicted in this court as a crime of fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for and on April 12, 2017.

[2] According to the above fact-finding as to the cause of the claim on February 2, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom, since the Defendant committed a tort against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the argument that the nominal owner who entered into the contract with the plaintiff is not the defendant but D is justified.