1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following additional portions, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff related to the actual operator of the ice shop asserts that this court is also the defendant's actual operator of the ice shop.

However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 42-44 and the testimony of the witness G of the party examination, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant is the actual operator of the party examination.

Rather, in light of the description of evidence No. 1, E appears to have run a ice in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the actual operator of the ice shop is E, the Defendant, who lent his name to E, shall be liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

As seen earlier, the Defendant appears to have lent the name to E in relation to the operation of the Jeju Youth shop.

However, the liability of the nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal name as the business owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). The plaintiff lives in the defendant's office for more than three to four days per week before he/she worked in the icehouse (Evidence 3-1, 2). The reason for recognizing that I, who was the person in charge of H brand, was in charge of H brand, communications with the plaintiff or E in performing his/her duties, such as receiving fees: evidence No. 36, evidence No. 36, and evidence No. 3

1. In light of the evidence No. 18, the plaintiff only lent the name of the defendant, and the actual operator of the ice shop was fully aware of the fact that he was E.