A. The key issue of this case 1) The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for KRW 100 million on the cash custody certificate of this case (see A1 and attached Form). Accordingly, the Defendant did not participate in the operation of E, and the Defendant did not grant his mother C the right of representation on the preparation of the cash custody certificate of this case, and the Plaintiff was well aware of the circumstances that the Defendant is a mere nominal lender, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. 2) Accordingly, the key issue of this case is whether the Defendant can be deemed to have granted the comprehensive right of representation on the loan of this case, and whether the name lender’s liability can be recognized.

Judgment

1) Whether the comprehensive right of representation is recognized or not) The debtor column of the cash custody certificate of this case bears the name of "E company B" and the seal of the defendant. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that C bears the above name and seal of the defendant. However, the defendant denies the authenticity of the cash custody certificate of this case as to his own seal. However, according to the following circumstances, ① KRW 100 million is deposited in the name of the defendant, ② 3 (Business Registration Certificate), ② 4 (Business Registration Certificate), ② 6 (Business Registration Certificate), ② 11 (Business Registration Certificate), ② 14 ( Total Registration Certificate of Aggregate Building Registration) and testimony of Party F of Party C’s witness of Party C’s text message of the Bank of Korea as of March 13, 2017, ② the cash custody certificate of this case is prepared and issued in the name of the defendant, ② the name of the defendant at the time when the cash custody certificate of this case was issued.