1. The Plaintiff’s share of KRW 165,771,80 against the Defendant based on a divided steel supply contract listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the business owner of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government C’s business registration.

B. On September 2014, E: (a) drafted a divisional steel supply contract in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant divided steel supply contract”) with the purport to receive KRW 165,771,800 as the contract deposit from the Defendant; and (b) written the divided steel supplier as “D” and its representative as “E”, respectively.

C. By September 26, 2015, E received KRW 165,771,800 in total from the Defendant to the account in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, witness E's testimony and purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded a divided steel supply contract of this case is E, and the Plaintiff merely lent the name of “D” to E as the name of the business operator is required. Since the Defendant knew or was unaware of such name due to gross negligence, the Plaintiff does not bear any and all obligations related to the divided steel supply contract of this case. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff sought the return of the contract deposit paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff under the divided steel supply contract of this case. Since the Plaintiff is at risk of being subject to the claim for return of the said contract deposit from the Defendant, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation as to whether the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return the said contract deposit against the Defendant. 2) Since the Plaintiff is a party to the divided steel supply contract of this case, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to return the contract deposit, and even if

Even if the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff was the genuine party of the instant divided steel supply contract, and thus, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to return the contract deposit as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The instant divided steel supply contract contains the trade name of “D,” the Plaintiff’s nominal owner, and the Defendant.