beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
2. The defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 24, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract under the Plaintiff’s permission, under which the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction cost of KRW 187,00,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the Sejong Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tax”) for the construction period from September 1, 201 to November 30, 201, under which the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the NABV construction (hereinafter “instant construction”). The said contract was modified from September 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011.
B. On July 9, 2010, the Plaintiff received KRW 149,60,000 in total, and around January 28, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 115,60,000,000 for the construction cost of the instant case, and paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 136,00,000 in total, which is KRW 102,000,000 on July 9, 2010, each of which is the same day, around January 28, 2011 (the amount calculated by deducting KRW 13,60,000 from the value-added tax amount of KRW 149,60,000 on the same day).
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with B (hereinafter “B”) on the instant construction project with the Plaintiff’s permission. Upon the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of construction price under the said subcontract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,000,000,000 as the price for the instant construction project, around February 28, 201, around March 3, 201, KRW 5,000,000 on April 18, 201, KRW 30,000,000 on May 4, 2011, and KRW 44,000,000,000 on September 8, 201, and KRW 6,832,94,94,000 on November 17, 2011, KRW 30,000 on April 18, 2011, KRW 30,000 on September 4, 2011.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, 9, 10, Gap evidence 7-1 through 3, Gap evidence 8-7, 8, Gap evidence 25-1, Gap evidence 34-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Where the nominal lender permits the nominal lender to operate his/her business using his/her name, the obligation that the nominal lender bears to the third party who trades by mistake of the nominal lender as a transaction party under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, in regard to the cause of the claim.