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

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator engaged in manufacturing steel plates, etc. with the trade name “D” in Nam-si, Namyang-si.

B. The defendant completed the business registration of F, which runs the construction business upon the request of F, under his name.

C. Upon E’s request, the Plaintiff supplied goods to the CJ Korea-based G Changho and miscellaneous construction sites, etc. (hereinafter “the instant transaction”) that the Defendant received from the CJ-based Design Co., Ltd., and the price for the goods currently not paid is KRW 39,762,443.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2 and 5, witness H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's punishment was ordered from E with the defendant's permission to use the name, and thus, the defendant bears the duty to pay the price of the goods of this case in accordance with the legal principles of the nominal name holder under the Commercial Act.

B. (1) Determination on the cause of the claim (A) First of all, as to whether the Defendant leased the title to E with respect to the instant transaction, the fact that the Defendant completed the business registration of “F” engaged in the construction business upon the request of E, etc., as seen earlier, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it solely with the witness H’s testimony as to the fact that the Defendant lent the title to E with respect to the instant transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff engaged in the instant transaction with E, other than the Defendant, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was mistaken for the Defendant as the business owner.

(B) In addition, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner, and thus, the other party to the transaction is not liable if he knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name.