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. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 10, and Gap evidence No. 4 may be admitted by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff is engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant had D engage in the retail business with the trade name of "F" in the name of "F" in Seocheon-si E in the name of the defendant.

B. From August 15, 2014 to September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied various births, such as refavokings, to “F” and did not receive KRW 2,165,000 out of the birth price.

C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff received orders from the mobile phone (G) opened in the name of the Defendant to supply a livelihood to “F”, supplied various kinds of living vessels as above, and received some of the living costs through a deposit account opened in the name of the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to view that D permitted the business of "F" using the Defendant's name. 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 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, the nominal holder who asserts exemption from liability should bear the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew of or was negligent in making the fact of the nominal holder's name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). Thus, as long as there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff knew or knew of the fact of nominal holder's name or was grossly negligent in making the nominal holder's name known, the Plaintiff shall be the business owner of "F."