1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business of freezing fishery products, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is the nominal owner of the place of business “D” (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. The Plaintiff supplied goods, such as freezing fishery products, at the instant place of business, and the outstanding amount accrued until August 12, 2016, which is the final transaction date, is KRW 18,99,050.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant lent his name to the business registration of the workplace of this case in which the Eul actually operated, and the plaintiff believed the plaintiff's business registration certificate and the defendant living together with the business registration certificate and supplied the goods such as freezing fishery products in the workplace of this case (hereinafter "the goods of this case").

At the time, E had a considerable amount of debt to the Plaintiff, and if the operator of the instant workplace was aware that E, he would not engage in the instant goods transaction.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 18,990,050 to the Plaintiff.

B. According to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, a person who permits another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name is jointly and severally liable with another person to pay the third person, who trades by mistake as the owner of the business.

However, 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 a business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was gross negligence on the part of the nominal owner, the nominal owner shall not be liable, and in this case, the nominal owner shall be exempted from liability.