1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that C is liable as the nominal holder for the obligation to borrow a loan amount of KRW 10 million on December 29, 201, as C had registered its business under the name of the Defendant and used the Defendant’s account, and that C used the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant was mistaken for the Defendant, and that the Defendant is liable as the nominal holder for the obligation to borrow a loan amount of KRW 10 million against C.

However, the nominal lender's liability is jointly and severally liable to the third party who has permitted another person to conduct business using his name or trade name (Article 24 of the Commercial Act). Even if C used the Defendant's name account, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant permitted C to conduct business by using the Defendant's name or trade name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (it can be recognized that the name of the restaurant operator was not the Defendant at the time of December 201 when the Plaintiff lent money to C according to the result of the response to the order to submit tax information on the original stamp, which was issued by the court of first instance, to provide tax information on the original stamp, and there is no evidence to support that C's above loan obligation against the Plaintiff constitutes a transaction obligation that falls under the scope of the restaurant business, and therefore, C's liability for the nominal lender is not recognized.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.