1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is a person who runs a retail business with the trade name of “B”. The Plaintiff supplied part of the infrastructure at the site of the machinery and equipment of the Korea Agricultural Machinery Global Center that the Defendant contracted with the construction, on November 2, 2014, with the total amount of KRW 11,550,000 in total.

C entered the name of C in the last part of the transaction list prepared by the Plaintiff while supplying the said goods, and signed it.

On November 30, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice regarding KRW 11,550,000 as “the recipient” of the Defendant as “the recipient.”

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the basis of the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s assertion sought payment of KRW 11,550,000 for the goods to the Defendant:

① The Plaintiff supplied the said goods to the Defendant.

When the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the above price of goods, the defendant promised to pay the price at an early date.

② The Defendant lent the Defendant’s qualification certificate to C so that C may be ordered to work for a paper. C was supplied with the said goods by the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was mistaken for and traded the said goods by mistake as the person to whom the said goods were supplied.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the above price as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

3. Determination

A. It is not sufficient to acknowledge the allegation that the defendant is a party to a transaction and committed a promise to repay, solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the above 2.1, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(C) The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit. (3) The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit. (4) The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on the liability of the nominal lender under the Commercial Act, only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 10 are the plaintiff No. 2.