beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff supplied active terms, etc. to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay 13,298,000 won out of active terms up to now.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid active fish price of KRW 13,298,00 and damages for delay.
2. 1) First of all, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied active terms, etc. to the Defendant, who is not C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Next, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant lent the name to C, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the repayment of active terms as the nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
In addition to the purport of Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, and evidence 3-1, it is recognized that Eul received active language, etc. from the plaintiff and paid the price of goods to the plaintiff using the bank account in the name of the defendant, and that it issued account statements stating the plaintiff as the person to whom the defendant is supplied.
However, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is recognized as the case where a third party misleads the nominal lender as the business owner. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1 through 5, the Plaintiff entered the other party in C only in preparing transaction books, and the name and trade name of the defendant cannot be found in the above books. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appears to have been aware that C was the counterparty, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was mistaken as the business owner.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is without merit.
The judgment of the first instance is unfair on the contrary of its conclusion, and thus, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.