Effect of attachment and assignment order of claims against the nominal lender under the Commercial Act

As long as the non-party permitted the use of his trade name and the non-party to conduct business, the defendant company is obligated to pay the non-party's debt to the third party who trades the defendant company as the nominal lender under the Commercial Act. Thus, the defendant company's claim against the third party against the defendant company is deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff lawfully in accordance with the claim seizure and assignment order. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff

Article 24 of the Commercial Act, Articles 563 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] 13 June 13, 1978, 78Da236 (TapI Article 24(1) of the International Commercial Act, 85 pages, Ka1829, Ka1829, Gong591, 10947)

Plaintiff

Taesan Construction Corporation

Daejeon District Court of Hongsung (80Gahap244 delivered on April 1, 200)

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,00,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from November 29, 1980 to the full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances.

3. The payment portion of the money under paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The above non-party 1's evidence Nos. 1-1 ( Original Copy of Decision) 2-2 (Evidence No. 2) and 3 (Building Permit No. 2), and the testimony of the lower court as to non-party 2, Dong-ho and Si-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, 1 (1).

The defendant alleged that the above non-party 2 was aware of the fact that the above non-party 1's personal business of the above non-party 1 had no relationship with the defendant company externally from the time when the above non-party 1 entered into the above construction contract for the land of this case, but the testimony portion of the party hearing witness Kim Jong-ho, corresponding thereto, presented the above non-party 2 and the plaintiff's personal seal impression at the joint legal office on June 5, 1980 after the non-party 1 went the above non-party 2 and the plaintiff at the joint legal office, and written Eul evidence No. 3 (Agreement), a notarial deed related to the payment of the above construction amount as the representative of the defendant company as the defendant company's agent, and even if the non-party 2 knew of the above non-party 1's personal business, the above non-party 2 knew of the fact of lending the name of the defendant company at the time or was negligent. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Therefore, as long as the above non-party 1 permitted the above non-party 1 to conduct its business using the name of the defendant company in conducting the above banking work and the housing building business, the defendant company is obligated to pay the above non-party 2 the construction payment amount of KRW 16,00,000 to the above non-party 1 who traded the defendant company as business owner. Therefore, the above non-party 2's construction payment claim amounting to KRW 16,00,000 against the defendant company was transferred to the plaintiff legally in accordance with the above seizure and assignment order.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 16,00,000 won as well as damages for delay in the Civil Code at the rate of 5% per annum from November 29, 1980 to the full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified. The judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable. Thus, the judgment is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, and Article 199 of the Provisional Execution Act with respect to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Kim Jong-Un(Presiding Judge)