1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 13, 1999 upon F’s request, the Defendant opened an ordinary deposit passbook (Account Number G; hereinafter “instant account”) in the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank (hereinafter “Korea Housing and Commercial Bank”) in its name, Inc. (hereinafter “Korea Housing and Commercial Bank”) and continued to use the instant account.

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 25 million to the instant account on August 15, 2011 (hereinafter “H account”), KRW 23 million on August 24, 201, and KRW 3 million on December 6, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent money of KRW 51 million to the instant account to the Defendant, not the F, who is the nominal owner.

In addition, even if the borrower of the above money is F, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff about the F's credit standing through the act of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by lending the name of the account to F, and the plaintiff incurred monetary damages by lending the above money without knowing the F's bad credit standing, and thus, the defendant shall compensate for the damages as joint tortfeasor.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 50 million won and delay damages for the loan to the plaintiff.

(The plaintiff paid KRW 51 million to the defendant in the first instance trial. The defendant alleged that he did not purchase the vehicle and sought the return of the vehicle, and the cause of the claim was changed to that of the first instance trial.

Judgment

1) It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant borrowed the said money from the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the nominal holder of the instant account, who remitted money, was the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, the Plaintiff is a salary-making factory upon F’s request upon the request of the Plaintiff, i.e., having been aware of the F and having become aware of it in 2009 or 2010.