1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the 7th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with

Additional Statements:

C. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that even if the party to the consignment sale contract of this case is D, the defendant bears the responsibility for the expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Code or the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Code.

First of all, examining whether the Defendant bears the responsibility of expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act, so long as D, regardless of whether D’s right of representation exists or not, as seen earlier, is a party to the instant consignment contract, so long as the Plaintiff and D establish the instant consignment contract between them, in principle, and the Defendant does not have any legal relationship between them, so there is no room to apply the provisions on agency under the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

Then, examining whether the Defendant is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal titleholder as the business owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in finding the fact of the nominal lender, the other party to the transaction is not liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, who is the other party to the transaction, was aware of the fact that the Defendant lent the name of the nominal lender to D and let D operate the mobile phone sales business, and thus, the Defendant

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is also made.