1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the plaintiff used "K" as "L" at the fifth fifth and seventh of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and as to the preliminary claims added at the court of the first instance, the following judgments are identical to the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for addition to the corresponding part of the judgment, thereby citing them as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the co-defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “D”) operated the Defendant’s trade name as the representative L, and even when paying interest to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs used the account opened in the name of L, and the amount lent to D was used for L business.

Since D, who is a nominal borrower, has engaged in the business by expressing the name of the defendant who is the nominal lender under social norms, the defendant shall be liable under Article 24 of the Commercial Act as a person who has lent the name of the business operator.

(b) A person who permits another person to run his/her business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay back to a third party who has transacted his/her business misleading that person as the proprietor of the business.

(Article 24 of the Commercial Act). The above provision provides that the nominal lender shall be liable to jointly and severally pay the debt incurred by the nominal lender in the course of his/her business transaction in order to mislead the nominal lender as the principal of the business and to protect the other party's interests.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da17568, Oct. 11, 2013). With respect to the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiffs were to use money for the project cost of F operated by D and that they leased money to D is recognized as above. As such, the Plaintiffs’ mistake of the Defendant as the business owner, and did not deal with D based on any trust or expectation with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.