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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells electronic equipment and communications equipment, and the Defendant registered its business with the trade name “B” on April 6, 2009 and engages in wholesale and retail business of electronic parts.

B. The Defendant’s husband C presented the Defendant’s business registration certificate to the Plaintiff and requested the supply of electronic parts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has supplied electronic parts to “B”.

C. From April 8, 2010 to March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied electronic parts equivalent to KRW 68,704,00 to “B”, and did not receive KRW 68,00,000 out of the price of the said goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was gross negligence on the part of the other party to the transaction, he/she is not liable. In this case, whether the other party to the transaction knew of or was gross negligence on the part of the other party to the transaction of the nominal name, the burden of proof is borne by the nominal lender who asserts exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). 2) The following circumstances revealed through each evidence, i.e., the Defendant maintains a legal marital relationship with C from 1997, ii) with C from 206 to 206, while C has transacted with the Plaintiff from 206 to D, C continued the transaction with “B” after the bankruptcy of the business to 30 to 2013.