1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract for the construction of the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) under the name of the Defendant with respect to the construction project for the building of the instant construction project (hereinafter “the instant construction project”) under the name of the Defendant attached to C, which was permitted by the Defendant to enter into the subcontract, and accordingly, the Plaintiff performed the construction project under the instant construction project. As such, the Defendant asserts to the purport that, as the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost unpaid to the Plaintiff, KRW 63,359,400, and damages for delay.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 5, the defendant completed the business registration of construction business, etc. for the purpose of new construction and sale of housing with the trade name of "H", and "F" entered into a contract with "H" for the instant construction business, and the above C is the representative director of the above company, and the owner of the above construction work may recognize the fact that he/she is the defendant.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone concluded the instant construction contract with C who borrowed the name from the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff.

(1) In the case of this case, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that labor was provided at the construction site of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

(1) In addition to the instant construction work, the Plaintiff asserted that, at the first instance court, the construction of C C was not paid the construction price after the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Defendant or C and completed the construction work. However, at the first instance court on April 21, 2020, the Plaintiff did not enter into a subcontract with the Defendant or C regarding the said construction work.