1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

The court's reasoning for this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning for this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

The plaintiff's assertion is the representative of D and the party who borrowed money from the plaintiff to purchase golf products. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages for delay from December 10, 2013, which is the day following the payment of sales profits.

Even if the Defendant is not a party to the contract, the Defendant permitted the Defendant to use his business name in the name of his business owner and thus, the Plaintiff misleads the Defendant as a business owner and lends each of the instant loans, so the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay each of the instant loans and damages for delay pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act as the nominal owner.

The defendant is deemed to be in the position of employer who is objectively in a relationship of direction and supervision of E as the nominal lender, and therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages equivalent to each of the loans of this case incurred by E in relation to its performance

The defendant's assertion is merely a party who borrowed each of the loans of this case from the plaintiff while substantially operating D, only lent the name of business registration to E.

The plaintiff is not liable for the name lender to the plaintiff, since he/she lends money to E with the knowledge that he/she is the actual owner of the D's business.

Since the defendant cannot be deemed to have an objective and normative direction and supervision relationship between the defendant and E, the defendant does not bear an employer's responsibility.

However, as to whether the Defendant is the party to the contract of this case, the sum of the sales contract document No. 100 million won, as to whether the Defendant is the borrower of each of the loans of this case.