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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells new shoess under the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu C Superior, and the Defendant is a person who is engaged in the new category retail business with the trade name of “F” in subparagraphs 98 and 99 of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E commercial name.

B. From around 2011, the Plaintiff sold a new product to the Defendant. As of June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 11,324,000 out of the price of the goods.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 11,324,00 won per annum as stipulated in Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015), as sought by the Plaintiff, from August 19, 2015 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, to the date of full payment, barring special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that his punishment only was registered as a business operator under the name of the defendant and did not enter into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff, and thus, the liability of the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal holder as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the nominal holder, he shall not be held liable. As to whether the other party to the transaction knew of or was negligent in making the fact of the nominal holder, the nominal holder who asserts exemption from liability bears the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). It is recognized that the fact that the plaintiff knew of or was grossly negligent in making the nominal holder of the transaction.