1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff engaged in the tobacco wholesale business with the trade name of “C”; and (b) the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request, engaged in the discretionary processing service business with the trade name of “D, supplied tobacco from around 2008 to January 3, 2012; and (c) the amount of attempted money reaches KRW 15,79,000.

Even if the Defendant is the nominal lender, the Plaintiff did not know that the Defendant was not the nominal lender.

B. The defendant alleged that he had registered the large business in the name of the defendant by lending his name upon the request of E while working as a business member of D operated by E from August 2007.

However, the defendant is only the nominal name holder, and the actual operator is E, and the plaintiff is also aware of this fact.

2. Determination

A. According to Gap evidence No. 2 as to whether the defendant is a party to a goods supply contract, it is recognized that Eul's business registration was completed under the defendant's name on or around December 2007, while according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, it is recognized that Eul is the actual operator of Eul, and the defendant lent the business name to Eul. Thus, considering these circumstances, the defendant cannot be viewed as a party to whom the plaintiff was supplied with tobacco from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Whether the Defendant is liable for the name titleholder to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant is liable for business registration of D in its own name; and (b) the Defendant is responsible for the name titleholder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, since it may be held that E would operate the said business; (c) however, this is intended to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the name titleholder as an employer; and (d) if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the name titleholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). The above facts of recognition are stated as follows: (a) the entry in the evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7, and testimony