대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that "The defendant's mother C is liable for the payment of the above loan, since it is necessary for the defendant's mother C to open the business to be managed in the name of the defendant's business operator and borrowed KRW 20,100,000."
2. First of all, since there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge whether the Defendant borrowed the above money, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
Next, the plaintiff's assertion is deemed to be liable for the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, and the liability of the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal holder as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in finding the nominal holder, the nominal holder shall not be held liable (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da18309, Nov. 12, 1991). Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.