1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells goods used as part of a restaurant with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person registered as a joint proprietor of the restaurant called “F” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, along with the network D.

B. The Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 6,403,70 on December 2, 2015, and KRW 3,607,500 on January 2, 2016 to F cafeterias, but was paid only KRW 5,200,00 on February 2, 2016 by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where the title holder of a related law concludes a partnership agreement with another person, and allows another person to operate his/her business in a joint name, and the other party to the transaction also has made transactions by mistake as the joint business owner of the relevant business, he/she shall be liable for the liability as the title holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act;

In addition, 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 owner as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was gross negligence on the part of the other party to the transaction, he/she shall not be held liable. In this case, the nominal lender who asserts exemption from liability bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da18309 delivered on November 12, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512 delivered on April 13, 2001, etc.). 3. Determination as to the cause of the claim is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the network and allowed the network to operate the business after completing the business registration under the joint name; and (b) the Plaintiff was mistaken for the Defendant as the joint business owner, and thus, the Defendant is liable as the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the goods to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.