운송료
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into a marine transportation contract with C, which uses the name cards written by the Defendant as the Defendant’s director (hereinafter “instant transportation contract”), and delivered plastic scrap scrap goods at least seven times from August 24, 2017 to December 2, 2017, as indicated in the following table:
D E F GH IJ
B. The Plaintiff’s transport charges for delivery under the instant transport contract are as listed below, and the sum of which is KRW 87,652,637.
(hereinafter referred to as the "transport fee of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 17 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded the instant transport contract with the Defendant to transport the goods of plastic scrap to the optical port or Incheon port in the optical port or Incheon port, and completed the transport accordingly, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 87,652,637 of the instant transport charges to the Defendant. 2) Even if the Defendant is not a party to the instant transport contract, the Defendant is liable to pay the instant transport charges to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely entered into the instant transport contract with the Defendant, and did not enter into the instant transport contract with the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff, without having entered into the contract with the Defendant’s representative director, believed that it was only C’s horse without entering into the contract.
Therefore, since the plaintiff was grossly negligent in gathering the name lending, the plaintiff cannot be held liable to the defendant for the name lending.
3 Around September 5, 2017, the Defendant met the Plaintiff and was not related to the instant contract of carriage since it was for the certificate of origin.
The plaintiff's assertion.