1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserted that around October 2012, the plaintiff supplied the defendant with an agency equivalent to the sum of KRW 16,434,200 (including surtax), but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the statements in subparagraphs A through 3 and the testimony of the witness C at the trial, it is recognized that the plaintiff supplied the above goods to C (one name E) who operated the business in the name of "D" with the name of "D". Furthermore, even if the plaintiff's above assertion contains the defendant's assertion on the defendant's liability for the nominal lender, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect the third party who trades the nominal lender by mistake as the business owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of the nominal lender or was grossly negligent, the other party to the transaction is not liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da2130, Jan. 24, 2008; 91Da29781, Jun. 23, 1992). Since the plaintiff's request for the registration of the nominal lender and the testimony of the witness at the trial at the time of supplying the above goods, the plaintiff's request for the registration of the nominal lender and the defendant's claim cannot be dismissed.