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 court's explanation of this case in this case is about the first instance judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The part "B" argues that the defendant merely lent the name of a business operator to the co-defendant B of the first instance trial, and there was no direct transaction with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also knew of the above fact of the above fact of the name lending. The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by mistake of the nominal holder as a business owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of the name lending or was grossly negligent in finding the fact of the name lending, he shall not be held liable. As such, whether the other party to the transaction knew of the name lending or was grossly negligent in finding the above fact of the name lending, he shall bear the burden of proof as to whether the nominal lender alleged exemption was the party to the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da10512, Apr. 13, 201; 2000Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001; 3.