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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion emphasized by the defendant in the court of first instance.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. At the time when the plaintiff alleged to be the defendant entered into a contract for the supply of livestock products with A, the defendant was not involved, and there is no distribution of profits with A.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the defendant's liability as the name holder is without merit.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 4, the Defendant was registered as joint business operators of A and C, and the Plaintiff maintained the status of joint business operators even during the period of supplying goods to C; and the Plaintiff is recognized as having supplied livestock products to C from August 2015 to November 2016. Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides for protecting the interests of the other party to the transaction by misunderstanding the leased person as the principal agent of the business, and accordingly, the nominal lender is jointly and severally liable for the obligation owed by the nominal lender in the course of his/her business transaction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46555 Decided October 23, 2008). The nominal owner entered into a partnership agreement with another person and permitted another person to operate the business in a joint name, and also includes cases where the nominal owner misleads another person as a joint business owner of the pertinent business and makes transactions by misunderstanding that the nominal owner is a joint business owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff entered into a livestock products supply contract with A, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff believed that the joint business owner was the Defendant at the time when the joint business owner was formed, and that the Plaintiff believed that he would be able to receive the relevant goods price from the Defendant by trust.

Therefore, it is responsible for the name holder.