C On November 28, 2013, in the name of Defendant (D), the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a “Business Partnership Agreement” with the content that the Plaintiff would receive 30,000,000 won cash security from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant would divide 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the bank well-known products.

On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff received a copy of the business registration certificate and passbook under the name of the Defendant from C, and remitted KRW 30,000,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant.

Article 3 of the above Convention provides that "the defendant shall be liable for the return of KRW 30,000,000 upon the request of the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff two months prior to the above Convention."

The Plaintiff demanded C to return KRW 30,000,000, which did not yield profits, and C prepared “the next payment certificate” with the purport that “C shall pay the debt amount of KRW 30,000,000 each month from February 10, 2015 to the Plaintiff around November 10, 2014.”

C Since then, 4,00,000 won was fully paid to the Plaintiff, but the remainder of 26,000,000 won was unpaid.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, Eul 1-4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A person who permits another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name in determining the cause of the claim shall be jointly and severally liable to pay back to the third person who has transacted with him/her as the owner of the loan.

(Article 24 of the Commercial Act (Article 24). Liability of a nominal lender is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as a business owner, and thus, liability is not borne if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the name lending. However, as to whether the other party to the transaction knew or was negligent in making the fact of the name lending, the nominal lender