대여금 중 일부금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of subparagraph 1-2 of the basic facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW 142,190,000 to Defendant B from August 24, 2009 to August 14, 2010, and the total amount of KRW 93,390,000 to Defendant C from October 26, 2009 to November 11, 2009.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, since the Defendants borrowed each of the above money (hereinafter “the instant money”) from the Plaintiff’s friendship D and joint business proprietor.
However, there is no dispute between the parties, which is the fact that the Defendants lent the name of business operator Eul to D at the time of the above transfer, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants borrowed money from the Plaintiff in the relationship between D and joint business operators only with the above facts, and there is no evidence to find otherwise, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff also asserted that the Plaintiff was registered as a business entity E at the time when the Plaintiff lent the instant money to D, and that the Defendants lent the name of the business entity to D, and that D borrowed the instant money with the operating fund of E, the Defendant is liable to return KRW 100,000,000, which is a part of the instant loan, under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendants had been registered as the nominal owner of E at the time the Plaintiff deposited the instant money in the passbook in the name of the Defendants, but the liability of the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. As such, there is a gross negligence on the other party to the transaction, which knew or knew the fact of the name lending