1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"A evidence Nos. 3 and 4" is added to the part on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (No. 16) on the evidence of recognition under paragraph (1).

The following shall be added to the third part of the judgment of the first instance following the second part:

As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that, “2. The Defendant merely lent the Defendant’s business registration certificate and corporate account to C and actually traded with C, and that, if the Plaintiff confirmed or asked his/her representative about whether it was a transaction, etc. prior to credit transaction with C, he/she cannot be held liable for the Defendant since it did not go through any verification procedure, even though he/she could have easily known the fact of the name lending or the illegal use of the Defendant’s name. The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades with the nominal owner by misunderstanding the nominal owner as a business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew or was grossly negligent with regard to the fact of the nominal name lending, he/she shall bear the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001; 200Da213630, Jan. 24, 2008).

2. The plaintiff's claim should be accepted as reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.