1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2013, C entered into an agreement for collection of scrap metal with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who are engaged in steel scrap collection business under the name of the Defendant, and entered into an agreement for collection of scrap metal by setting the trading period of advance payment at KRW 60 million on a two-year basis. On May 20, 2015, C entered into an agreement for collection of scrap metal by setting advance payment as KRW 100 million.

B. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 60 million to the Defendant’s name account, KRW 10 million on April 25, 2015, KRW 10 million on May 5, 2015, and KRW 15 million on May 19, 2015, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including value numbers), Evidence No. 1, Witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination made with the Defendant that the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million as advance payment when entering into an agreement for the collection of scrap metal, and that the Defendant closed its business as of December 31, 2015 without supplying scrap metal, etc., and the Defendant is obligated to pay advance payment KRW 100 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

However, as seen earlier, a person who entered into a separate collection agreement with the Plaintiff is C, and the Defendant merely lent his name to C, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that he is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act to the defendant who lent his title to C.

However, the following circumstances, which can be revealed by the statement No. 2 of the above evidence and Eul, i.e., ① in the actual operation of D and the name of the D representative, ② in the commencement of the transaction with the Plaintiff on June 19, 2013, C gave the Plaintiff the name of the D representative, and (ii) in the Plaintiff, upon the commencement of the transaction with the Plaintiff on June 19, 2013, C knew the Plaintiff that all business were carried out by himself. However, in light of the fact that it is difficult to find any circumstances to suspect the credibility of the statement, the Defendant is merely the nominal lender.