If the subcontractor acts as the director of the contractor's site, whether the contractor is liable as the name name holder of the contractor.

Where the contractor of a construction project has had another person perform the construction project by ordering the other person to subcontract the construction project, the contractor cannot be exempted from the liability as the nominal lender under the Commercial Act if he/she had the subcontractor act with the name of the site manager dispatched to the contractor's construction site.

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da642 Delivered on November 27, 1973

Plaintiff

Attorney Hong Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na3666 delivered on April 15, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant company was responsible for the name-holder since the defendant company lent the name to the non-party 1 concerning the new construction of the Seocho Apartment, on the ground that the non-party 2's testimony, corresponding thereto, is difficult to believe and there is no other evidence to prove it, and it is no longer unnecessary

However, in case where the contractor of the construction project gives a third party a subcontract for the construction project and has another person act for the third party, the contractor shall not be exempted from the liability as the name truster under the Commercial Act. However, in consideration of the testimony of the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 in each of the above sub-paragraph 1, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 1-1, the contractor shall not be exempted from the liability as the name truster under the Commercial Act. However, even if the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's above assertion was presented, the contractor is marked as the defendant company at the construction site of the above sub-contractor and the above non-party 1 was executed under the name of the defendant company. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence because the court below's decision that there was no evidence to acknowledge it is a violation of the rules of evidence determination that affected the conclusion of the judgment. This constitutes a ground for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)