In a case where Gap placed an order on the Internet product sales site where Eul had registered as a business operator under Eul's name and then remitted the price to Eul's deposit account in the name of Eul, but most of the ordered products were not delivered, the case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, etc. in holding that Eul is liable for the name truster under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, even though there is sufficient ground to view that

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Na11038 decided April 12, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the adopted evidence, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground that it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff through the Internet site of this case and defrauds money by deceiving the plaintiff through the Internet site of this case, although it is recognized that most of the household appliances ordered to transfer 65,178,500 won to the deposit account in the name of the defendant, after having access to the Internet site of this case where the plaintiff is registered as a business operator under the name of the defendant (hereinafter "the Internet site of this case").

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant, in the name of the defendant, etc., registered the business of "○○" in the name of the non-party, permitted the non-party to operate the Internet site of this case and provided the name of the deposit account necessary for payment. The representative director is marked as "the non-party and one other," and the deposit account on the settlement of payment is also indicated as "○○○○ (the defendant)". Accordingly, the court below should have determined that the non-party was liable for damages caused by the non-party's failure to perform the sales contract jointly with the non-party by allowing the non-party to use his name or trade name in the Internet site of this case and allowing the non-party to operate the household product sales business under Article 24 of the Commercial Act. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that "It is improper that the first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages even if the plaintiff remitted the price of the household product under the name of the defendant." The plaintiff's assertion as to this liability includes the defendant's assertion.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the responsibility of the nominal name holder, etc. to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the grounds as seen earlier, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or omitting judgment.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)