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 reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination is that even if the defendant is not the nominal lender, the nominal lender cannot be exempted from liability due to the transaction in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

The liability of the nominal lender is to protect a third party who trades by mistake of the nominal owner as a business owner. As such, the nominal lender who asserts exemption bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew of the nominal name or was grossly negligent in making the nominal name known.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). In light of the above legal principle, in the light of this case, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received the payment note (Evidence A 3) that the Plaintiff would be liable for joint and several liability for the outstanding amount of goods from F who actually operated the instant marina.

However, this is merely a measure taken to secure the defendant's obligation to pay goods for the owner of the business, and the existence of the above letter cannot be viewed as having known or failed to know the name of the defendant due to gross negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's argument about this is without merit.

3. The decision of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.