1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning “Defendant B” as “B” and the part concerning “2. height” below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

(However, the part concerning the height of the Co-Defendant B, who was separated and confirmed on February 2, 200, is as follows: (a) 3rd to 18th to 421 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) 4th to 21th of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance.

“1) In full view of the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to whether the other party to the instant branch supply transaction is the defendant company, and the part of the representative director of the plaintiff in the first instance trial and the purport of the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice in the name of the defendant company by obtaining the business registration certificate of the defendant company registered as the auditor by Eul while supplying the instant branch to Eul, but the above facts of recognition alone are insufficient to recognize that the other party to the instant branch supply transaction is the defendant company, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) As to whether the Defendant Company is liable as the nominal lender, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 25 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades the nominal lender by misunderstanding the nominal titleholder as the business owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in knowing the fact of the nominal lender, the nominal lender shall not be held liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da18309, Nov. 12, 191; 2 and 3; 2 and 3: (a) the tax information review results in the first instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s first instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance director’s inquiry results, and the entire purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances are revealed. In other words, (i) the Plaintiff has made one-year sales with B prior to the instant branch supply transaction,