1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2010, the Plaintiff is a representative of social welfare foundation E (hereinafter “E”). The Plaintiff is a person who registered his/her business under D, type of business (construction), interior decoration (type of business), and the Defendant is a representative of social welfare foundation E (hereinafter “E”).

B. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) entered into a contract for the construction of F building interior works (hereinafter “instant construction works”). The name of the contractor was entered into in the contract as “E” and the name of the contractor as “D representative Plaintiff,” and the Defendant agreed to be directly responsible for the construction cost of the instant case.

C. Around April 20, 2014, the Defendant and the Intervenor settled the instant construction cost of KRW 124,000,000, and the unpaid construction cost of KRW 60,000,000. The Defendant deposited the unpaid construction cost of KRW 20,000 on April 30, 2014, and the unpaid construction cost of KRW 40,000,000 on May 1, 2014, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 22, and 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the party to the instant construction contract. The Defendant, as the representative of E, concurrently assumed the obligation for the construction cost and paid the construction cost. The Defendant did not pay KRW 59,100,000 out of the construction cost determined on June 30, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 59,100,000 and damages for delay.

B. The fact that the name of the contractor was indicated as “the Plaintiff of D representative” in the instant construction contract is as seen above.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, Nos. 5, 6, 13, and 21, the intervenor managed the passbook and seal in the name of the plaintiff (D) and entered into the instant construction contract with the defendant. The defendant was the representative of D, and the plaintiff was aware that he was the spouse of the intervenor.