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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

[Additional Determination Matters] The plaintiff's assertion that C had borrowed the defendant's name and operated the civil engineering work of this case as his own business, the plaintiff was erroneous as the other party to the transaction without knowing such fact without gross negligence. Thus, the defendant should be held liable for the amount claimed by the plaintiff under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

Judgment

As examined in the judgment of the first instance court, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant made unjust enrichment of the amount exceeding C's actual performance among the total construction cost paid by the plaintiff.

In addition, even if the establishment of liability of the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is at issue with regard to the obligation to return unjust enrichment as restitution following the cancellation of the instant contract, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, C borrowed the name of the Defendant and performed the instant civil works, the liability of the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by mistake as the nominal holder as the business owner, and thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of the nominal holder or was grossly negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). As determined in the first instance court, the Plaintiff becomes aware of the fact that C lent the Defendant’s name and entered into the instant contract, namely, the process of entering into the instant contract, its specific contents and decision process, and the type of operation of funds execution, etc. of the instant civil works.