1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

1. To make a primary claim (loan);

A. The reasoning for this part of this Court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

2. Preliminary claim (Liability of the nominal lender).

A. The Defendant’s mother-friendly D, the Defendant’s assertion, with the Defendant’s permission, operated the “E” following business registration under the Defendant’s name.

D while running the business as the owner of “E”, D loaned money to the Plaintiff with the National Bank F account in the name of “C(E)”, and the Plaintiff paid the money to the said account.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for the money as the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

(1) Preliminary Claim). Since lending money in the name of “(C) E” without the defendant's knowledge is a tort, the defendant bears the responsibility for D's employer pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Code.

(2) Preliminary Claim. (b)

Judgment

1) Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that “A person who has allowed another person to engage in a business by using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to a third party who has transacted his/her business as the owner of the business.” The Plaintiff shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the third party the amount claimed to the National Bank F account in the name of “C (E)”. However, the Plaintiff and D have remitted money amounting to KRW 28,000,000,000, out of the claimed amount. However, the Plaintiff and D have engaged in money transactions since around 2011, preparing a loan certificate to the Plaintiff under their own name (B 1), and there is no evidence to deem that D had engaged in a transaction related to the “E” business, the facts recognized earlier alone are difficult to deem that the Plaintiff traded the Defendant as the owner of the business. 2) Article 756 of the Civil Act is premised on the employee’s tort liability.

The plaintiff asserts that it is illegal to borrow money in the name of "C (E)" without knowledge of the defendant, but as seen above, D is F. of a national bank in the name of "C (E)".