Whether allowing the use of his tax payment number certificate for a transaction between others constitutes an indication of granting the right of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act or a name under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

With respect to transactions between others, it is difficult to view that only the fact that a tax payment certificate has been granted to use his/her tax payment number, which is required only in tax accounting, or that he/she has lent his/her name or trade name.

Article 125 of the Civil Act, Article 24 of the Commercial Act

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na84 delivered on April 12, 1978

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) The court below concluded that the purchaser of the white paper in this case from the plaintiff was not the defendant, but the non-party 1. The court below's determination of the records was lawful when examining the process of evidence collection conducted in order to find these facts. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of laws, experience rules, or logical rules that misleads the plaintiff into the preparation of evidence, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete hearing,

(2) According to the facts found by the court below, the defendant entered into a contract with the non-party 1, who operated the water wholesale market at the time of May 16, 197, to sell 700 percent of the white paper. The defendant paid 2 million won in the same day to the non-party 1, and 5 million won in the same day to the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 received 700 percent of the white paper from the non-party 1 on May 31, 197. The non-party 1 purchased the above white paper from the plaintiff and sold it to the defendant. In selling the above white paper to the defendant, the non-party 1 purchased the above white paper after obtaining a copy of the defendant's tax payment certificate from the defendant as necessary for the tax accounting, and presented it to the plaintiff, and the non-party 1 purchased the above white paper. The court below's legitimate reasoning or its reasoning did not affect the non-party 1's sale of the above white paper to the non-party 1, and it did not affect the defendant's logic or evidence.

Therefore, the omission of judgment as to the issue does not affect the judgment of the court below. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)