beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacturing business, etc. of joint works machinery parts with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person engaged in the manufacturing business, etc. of a model for display, etc. with the trade name of "D", and the plaintiff has supplied the defendant the machinery parts, etc. totaling KRW 11,330,000 to the defendant on June 25, 2014 and July 14, 2014 at the defendant's request, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,30,00
2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that he only lent the name to E, and that E, a real trader, bears the responsibility for the payment of goods.
In principle, a nominal lender who has lent his/her name to another person shall be liable for any transaction between another person and another person in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act. However, since the liability of a nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect any third person who trades by misunderstanding the nominal holder as the business owner, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal holder, he/she shall not be held liable. In such a case, whether the other party to the transaction knew or was grossly negligent in,
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330 Decided January 24, 2008, etc.). Each statement of No. 1, No. 2, No. 1-2, and No. 2 of No. 1-2 is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant lent his/her name to E, made a decision to lend his/her name to E, or was grossly negligent for the Plaintiff to know or to know the name lending at the time of the Plaintiff’s transaction with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this, the Defendant’s above assertion
3. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant is against the plaintiff.