logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.06.08 2017나52310 (1)
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the judgment as to the assertion of the nominal lender’s liability under the Commercial Act added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the assertion of liability of the nominal lender under the Commercial Act

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 23 million to C as business funds for the sales business of fishery products. The Defendant lent the name of the sales business of fishery products to C, and thus, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. In order for the Defendant to be held liable for the above business loan agreement between the Plaintiff and C as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant’s business loan agreement should have allowed C to use the Defendant’s name, and the Plaintiff should have misunderstood that the party to the above business loan agreement was the Defendant, and there should be no gross negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da18309, Nov. 12, 1991). According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including serial numbers), it is recognized that the Defendant lent the name of the fishery products sales business to C, but it is recognized that the Plaintiff and C were not in full aware of the purport of the entire arguments. In other words, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff was the captain and crew of the fishing vessel affiliated with the “E” D, “E” located in Changwon-si, and C was the Plaintiff’s vehicle sales business at the time of renting and lending the money to C, and the Plaintiff was deemed necessary to have leased the money to the Plaintiff’s vehicle sales business at that time.

arrow