1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Defendant B operated a specialized driving school with the trade name of “specialized driving school” in Seo-gu in Gwangju, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant specialized driving school”), and Defendant C, as the husband of Defendant B, has been disadvantageous to the president of the workplace skill development training foundation fund, the principal office of which is located immediately next to the above D’s instant driving school.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 3, Eul 3, Eul 7, on-site inspection result, the whole purport of pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 2013, the Plaintiff’s primary assertion was awarded a contract for KRW 46,880,000 with the Defendant C, who used the position of the president by comprehensively delegated the operation of the pertinent driving school from Defendant B at the office of the pertinent driving school, with Defendant C, who used the said institute’s package work as the president.

7. 2.2. On the 10. and 13. of the same month, the work price was reduced to KRW 44,50,000 upon the request of Defendant C after the execution and completion of the work, and Defendant C paid only KRW 6,00,000 to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2013.

According to Article 48 of the Commercial Act, if an agent for commercial activities does not indicate that he/she is acting for himself/herself, such act is effective as against himself/herself, and the other party does not know that he/she is acting for himself/herself, the agent may also demand performance. Thus, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay 38,500,000 won to the Plaintiff.

2 If Defendant B did not comprehensively delegate the instant private teaching institute business to Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 38,500,000 to the Plaintiff as the contractor himself.

B. Defendant C was given the authority to contract construction on behalf of the said Defendant to the Plaintiff on behalf of the said Defendant on the sole basis of the evidence presented and used by the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C ordered the above construction work to the Plaintiff as the contractor himself.