Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant and this court.

1. According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the scrap metal transaction equivalent to the supply price of KRW 12,520,860 (including value added tax) on September 21, 2016 (hereinafter “the scrap metal transaction in this case”).

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As the Plaintiff sold scrap metal equivalent to KRW 12,520,860 to the Defendant on September 21, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said price to the Plaintiff as the purchaser of the instant scrap metal.

B. Even if the Defendant is not a party to the instant scrap metal transaction, it was permitted to use his name or trade name for business, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the said price to the Plaintiff based on the Plaintiff’s liability under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

3. As to the main claim (as to the claim for payment under the contract for the sales of scrap metal), the plaintiff was the person who made a transaction with the defendant, not the defendant, but the joint defendant C at the second hearing of this court. The plaintiff's main claim under the premise that the defendant is a party to the said scrap metal transaction is not accepted.

3. The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act for the judgment on the conjunctive claim (claim based on the nominal lender’s liability) is to protect the third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal lender as the business owner. As such, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of, the nominal lending, the other party to the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). The Plaintiff was aware that C, who is the other party to the transaction, was aware of

Since this Court was the person on the second hearing date, the plaintiff's preliminary claim is rejected on the opposite premise.

4. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are without merit.