1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the assertion, the Plaintiff sought payment of attempted money on the premise that the Defendant is the business owner of the steel product purchased from the Plaintiff, while the Defendant is a co-defendant E (the Defendant accepted the claim) and the Defendant merely lent the name of the business owner. The Plaintiff knew that the Defendant was only the nominal owner at the time of the transaction, and thus, did not bear any responsibility.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence as to whether the Plaintiff was aware of the name lending relationship, E was included in the “F” list issued by the Plaintiff from March 2007 to March 2015, and: (i) E began to engage in a transaction through the Plaintiff’s G head; (ii) E closed its business, and then operates “H” (from March 2015 to June 2015) in the name of the branch, “H” (from June 2015 to November 2016), “Stock Co., Ltd. I” (from June 2015 to November 10, 2016), and (iii) in the trading list issued by the Plaintiff in the “J” list, “I” was written in the remarks column, and “I” was first appropriated as “the current amount appropriated as “H” rather than “the current amount appropriated as “H” by the business entity” and “H” in the name of the branch.

In full view of the foregoing, the appearance of “J” under the name of the Defendant is recognized as having known that the actual business owner is E and the Defendant is only the nominal lender, since the transaction partner or the Plaintiff is on the H or the extension line actually operated by “J” and “J”.

3. The claim based on the premise that the defendant was recognized as the business owner at the time of the conclusion of the contract is without merit.