The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the loan agreement made between Aju Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Aju Capital”) and the debtor is the fact that the loan was paid in accordance with the aforementioned loan agreement. Although E merely lends its name when the loan was granted from Aju Capital upon D’s request, as long as the loan agreement was concluded in accordance with the E’s intent stated as the debtor under the loan agreement and the existence and content of the loan agreement are acknowledged in accordance with the language and text of the loan agreement, it is reasonable to view that E is the debtor for Aju Capital and the owner of the money loaned from Aju Capital as E. Capital is also the owner of the money.

Furthermore, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the Plaintiff’s remittance of the money borrowed from Aju Capital to the Defendant can be seen as the purpose of enabling the establishment registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the right in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant vehicle to Aju Capital by cancelling the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the right in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant vehicle. Accordingly, the obligor E, and even if the person who remitted the money to the Defendant is the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that E actually repaid the money he borrowed to the Defendant through the Plaintiff, and that the acceptance or delegation of the said large exchange business incidental to the above loan is also included in a comprehensive manner.

2. Nevertheless, the lower court immediately determined that E cannot be considered as the substitute for the reasons stated in its holding, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim asserted that E acquired the claim for return of unjust enrichment or the claim for damages against the Defendant.