1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 4,603,820 as a loan, and KRW 2,000,000 as a compensation for damages arising from a loan under the name of the business owner. The court of first instance accepted only KRW 2,502,470 as to the claim for damages among the Plaintiff’s claim, and dismissed the claim for the loan and the remainder of the claim for damages.

However, since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the damages claim against the defendant among the damages claim due to the loan of business name.

2. Determination:

A. If there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 9, and 13 (including each number), and the testimony of the party witness C added the whole purport of the pleadings to the testimony of the party witness C, the plaintiff lent the name of the business operator to the defendant around October 201, and the defendant, while operating the party's business name with the plaintiff's business name, imposed the value-added tax and global income tax of KRW 665,430, the telephone fee of KRW 339,870, and the increased amount of health insurance premium of KRW 51,170, the plaintiff paid the above money, and the defendant bears KRW 986,00 as the penalty for early termination of the Internet.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum total of KRW 2,502,470 as well as damages for delay.

B. As to this, the Defendant, instead of the Defendant, assumed that the Plaintiff was liable for the expenses incurred by the operation of the Plaintiff’s business name C and C, and that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant’s living expenses, skill expenses, etc., but failed to comply with the agreement, and thus, it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the Defendant’s borrowing of the name from the Plaintiff’s business name is not C but as recognized earlier. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone held that C is liable for the operating expenses.

or the plaintiff's living expenses to the defendant.