1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts were that Nonparty C had been awarded a contract for construction work at the construction site located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si with the name of Nonparty C, the Defendant’s representative, and on June 30, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the parts of the board, materials, etc. equivalent to KRW 47,212,00, and issued a tax invoice equivalent to the above amount with the Defendant as the Defendant, does not conflict between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserted that he was supplied to the defendant, not C. Even if the party to a domestic contract is not the defendant, the defendant bears the responsibility as the nominal lender pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

3. Determination

A. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff has been engaged in transactions, such as supplying goods to C for a period of ten years, and C has no business registration under his/her name, and therefore, he/she had been performing construction works by lending another person's business registration at all times, and the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances. The Plaintiff supplied goods at the construction site of this case at the request of C at the request of C, and during that process, it is recognized that the Plaintiff had no contact with the Defendant

According to the above facts of recognition, a person who received goods from the plaintiff shall be C, and the fact that the tax invoice under the name of the defendant was issued cannot be viewed differently.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion under the premise that the defendant is a contracting party is without merit.

B. The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff appears to have known or was grossly negligent in, the fact that C borrowed the name of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is also liable for the nominal lender under the above provision.