1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. Defendant C is the Plaintiff 38.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction work was implemented on the section (1) through (6) in accordance with the instant construction contract, and sought payment of the construction cost as follows.

1) On June 2013, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is a specialized E-Motor Vehicle Driving School (name of the registered business operator, Defendant B, and hereinafter “instant driving school”).

2) The construction contract under which Defendant C and C, the operator of the instant private teaching institute, comprehensively delegated the business of the instant private teaching institute by Defendant B, using the position of the president at the office of the office of the instant private teaching institute, contained in KRW 46,880,00 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

(2) On July 2, 2013 and July 2, 2013, according to the above contract, each of the construction works was completed on the same month and the same month on the 13th of the same month, and the construction cost was reduced to KRW 44,50,000 upon Defendant C’s request. Defendant C paid only KRW 6,00,000 out of the construction cost to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2013. Although the agent for commercial activities did not indicate that it is for himself/herself, the act is effective against himself/herself, and the other party did not know that it is for himself/herself, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the remainder of the construction cost to the Plaintiff (Article 48 of the Commercial Act). The parties to the instant construction contract and the instant Foundation F (hereinafter “instant”).

Defendant B, who is the proprietor of the instant driving school, is responsible for the conclusion of the instant construction contract by having Defendant C, his spouse, operate the instant driving school, leading the Plaintiff to mistake Defendant C as the proprietor of the instant driving school.

Therefore, Defendant C is a party to the instant construction contract, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.