1. The Defendant’s decision to recommend performance to the Daegu District Court on August 28, 2019 was based on the decision to recommend performance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 22, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with the Daegu District Court Decision 2019Da235659, stating that “E” against the Plaintiff and Nonparty D, “E”, the Defendant, who jointly runs a construction business with the Plaintiff and D, completed the construction work by being awarded three contracts from the Plaintiff that they jointly run the construction business, but did not receive the remainder of construction cost of KRW 19,492,00, and thus, the Plaintiff and D jointly and severally filed a lawsuit with the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay at a rate of 12% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.” On August 28, 2019, the decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”).

B. The instant decision of performance recommendation was served on September 2, 2019 with the Plaintiff and D respectively, and was finalized on September 17, 2019 as it was.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff is not a partnership in the business with D. The plaintiff lent the business name of E to D, but the defendant was well aware of the fact that "E is a real business owner D, and the plaintiff is a mere nominal name holder." Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable as a nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act."

The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff and D are in a partnership business relationship, and the plaintiff was involved in the business of this case, such as requesting the defendant to issue a tax invoice and a written estimate. The plaintiff was aware that he was the actual business owner, and the defendant was merely the name truster. The defendant did not know that he was merely the name truster. There is no bad faith or gross negligence, and the plaintiff should be liable for the name truster under Article 24 of the Commercial Act."

B. As to the liability of the nominal lender, Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that "the name or trade name of another person shall be used."