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

A. The Plaintiff asserted as follows as the cause of the instant claim and sought payment of KRW 166,905,835 for the remainder of the goods.

(1) From April 8, 2014 to July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff used the Defendant as the opposite contractual party and left over the pipe materials, etc. of the amount of KRW 391,472,94, which the Defendant performed at the apartment construction site, but only received from the Defendant only KRW 224,567,109, out of the proceeds of the goods (materials).

(2) Even if the Defendant was not the Plaintiff’s counter-party, the Defendant is obligated to perform the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder of the goods price as the nominal name holder pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that both direct material transaction relations with the Plaintiff, total amount of the purchase price of the materials, and the fact of name lending, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be held liable as the nominal lender, since the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the fact of name lending at the time of such material transaction by gross negligence.

C. This Court does not accept all the Plaintiff’s arguments on the following grounds.

(1) In principle, a person who bears a liability for the purchase of goods is a seller. In order for a person who is not a buyer to bear the obligation for the purchase of goods as a primary debtor, it is limited to cases where the seller permits the purchaser of the goods to use his name or trade name and makes a transaction “by mistake of the purchaser as a business owner” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22380, Jun. 28, 2002). (2) In the instant case, as the Plaintiff around, the Plaintiff seems to support the fact that the other party to the said material transaction is the Defendant, in light of the partial descriptions of B1-3, and witness A’s testimony.