(a) Grounds for claims: as shown in the annexed sheet of grounds for claims;

(b) Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that Defendant C should bear the responsibility as a proprietor or as a nominal lender.

B. First, we examine whether Defendant C bears the responsibility as business owner.

In cases where an actor who enters into a contract performs a juristic act in another person’s name, as to whom the actor or the title holder is the party to the contract, the intent of the actor and the other party shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the same intent, and where the intent of the actor and the other party is not in accord, the other party shall be determined in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and details of the contract, if a reasonable person is in accord with the intent of the actor

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31990 Decided September 6, 2007). In this case, the following circumstances, which could be known by the health team, Gap's 3, 4, Eul's 2 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings, are as follows: (a) the plaintiff himself claims service charges against the defendant Eul on the premise that the defendant Eul is a party to the actual contract; (b) the defendant C was located in the business registration on April 12, 2016; (c) the plaintiff received part of the service charges; and (d) the plaintiff and the defendant B made a multi-child trip as the plaintiff and the defendant B. In light of the above, the parties to the instant service contract are the plaintiff and the defendant B.

Therefore, this part of the argument that Defendant C is a party to the contract cannot be accepted.

C. Next, Defendant C is liable as the nominal name holder.