Main Issues

Cases of misapprehending the legal principles as to the liability of a nominal lender;

Summary of Judgment

In a case where the defendant leases the well-being which had been managed with the trade name of ○○ and the plaintiff operates the well-being while using the same trade name as it is, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability due to the keeping of the well-being, if it is recognized that the plaintiff was mistaken for the defendant as the business owner of the ○○ pre-determined.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 24 of the Commercial Act, Article 42 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Gwangju District Court Decision 66Na255 delivered on October 11, 1966

Text

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

Reasons

According to the purport of the separate theory, it is not disputed between the parties that the defendant leased the temporary domicile operated by the defendant with the trade name of 00 U.S. to the non-party, and that the non-party operated the temporary domicile while using the same trade name as it is. If it is acknowledged that the non-party used the trade name of 00 U.S. temporary domicile and operated the temporary domicile, the non-party, while managing the temporary domicile, he stored this case from the plaintiff and issued the Gap No. 1 certificate, which is the certificate of keeping the temporary domicile, and the plaintiff was mistaken for the defendant as the business owner of the 00 U.S. temporary domicile, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability due to keeping the permanent domicile, notwithstanding the legal principles that the defendant could not be exempted from liability due to keeping the permanent domicile, and that the court below did not recognize that the witness No. 1 was responsible to the defendant merely because the witness No. 1 was issued by the defendant.