beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cites this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The grounds alleged in the trial in the appeal by the Plaintiff are different from the contents alleged in the first instance court. However, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs to this court and the circumstances surrounding the assertion are considered, it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court.). 2. Conclusion, the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant should be dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that it is not reasonable.
The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is justifiable, and all appeals against the plaintiffs against the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
(1) On January 8, 2018, after the date of the closing of argument in this Court, the Plaintiff filed an application for resumption of argument with this court on the ground that “the Defendant bears the responsibility of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, and whether this case is subject to the application of the doctrine of denial of corporate personality.” However, Article 24 of the Commercial Act on the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides a loan to another person for business under the name of the nominal lender in accordance with the doctrine of prohibition of speech and the doctrine of external appearance, if the nominal lender lends the name of the nominal lender under his/her name to protect the bona fide third party who traded the transaction with the intent of protecting the nominal lender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Da2219, Mar. 24, 1987; 2009Da852219, Mar. 24, 1987).