1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 144,512,622 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 9, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Gap evidence Nos. 9, the facts identical to the reasons for the claim and the facts that the defendant was finally insolvent on September 23, 2016. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated by the annual rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 9, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the payment order of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant first concluded a temporary re-lease agreement between A and the Plaintiff, which borrowed the name of the business operator from the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff knew of the fact of the name lending between the Defendant and A at the time of the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff did not be liable to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was gross negligence on the part of the other party to the transaction, he/she shall not be held liable. In this case, whether the other party to the transaction knew of or was gross negligence on the part of the other party to the transaction, the nominal lender

(1) The Plaintiff knew, or was negligent, of the fact of the name lending as alleged by the Defendant at the time of the instant contract. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da18309, Nov. 12, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Oct. 24, 2008). However, even if all the evidence submitted by the Defendant were integrated, the existence of the fact of the name lending as alleged by the Defendant and the Plaintiff did not know of the fact of the name lending as alleged by the Defendant