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 is in the judgment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff lent the sum of KRW 19 million to C (hereinafter “the instant money”), and C prepared and provided a loan certificate under the name of the Defendant on behalf of or on behalf of the Defendant, and the repayment of the loan was also made in the name of the Defendant account or the Defendant.

Since the Defendant permitted the mother C to run the business of “D” in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant shall be deemed to have borrowed the instant money jointly with C, and at least the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act shall be borne by the Defendant.

B. Even if not, C received the basic power of representation from the Defendant to act on behalf of the Defendant in relation to the above main business. Since C borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff in excess of the scope of authorization, there was a reasonable ground to believe that C has the authority to borrow the instant money on behalf of the Defendant.

Therefore, C’s borrowing of the instant money constitutes an expression representation under Article 126 (Apparent Representation in Excess of Authority) of the Civil Act.

2. Determination

A. Even according to the plaintiff's assertion on the joint borrower's assertion itself, C has prepared a loan certificate in the name of the defendant, and as recognized by the statement in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the defendant permitted the mother of the defendant to operate the principal place in the name of the mother of C, and the circumstance that C either issued a loan certificate in the name of the defendant or repaid the interest on the loan to the plaintiff using the defendant's account is insufficient to recognize that the defendant borrowed the instant money jointly with C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that a person who permits another person to run his/her business using his/her name or trade name shall be deemed to be a business owner.