1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of 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 corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for amendments and additions as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Supplementary parts] Part of the first instance court's decision "joint and several" shall be deemed to be "joint and several" in Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Part】 On the third side of the decision of the first instance, the following parts shall be added to the last one.

In addition, the defendant asserts that there was no commercial activity between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and that there was no joint management contract between the co-defendant B and C in the first instance trial, and it does not constitute joint business operators under the Civil Act.

In the absence of special circumstances, a partnership creditor is only entitled to claim repayment in proportion to the ratio of shares to each partner or equally. However, if the partnership debt is to be borne by an act of commercial activity for all members, it is reasonable to determine jointly and severally liable for all partners by applying Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919 delivered on March 13, 1998. Meanwhile, Article 24 of the Commercial Act is a provision to protect the other party's interest by misunderstanding a person who lends his/her name as the business entity and making a transaction. According to the provision, the nominal lender is jointly and severally liable to pay his/her obligation owed by the nominal lender in the course of performing a transaction

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46555 Decided October 23, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46555, Oct. 23, 2008). The nominal owner entered into a partnership agreement with another person and permitted another person to operate the partnership business under the joint name, and also includes cases where the nominal owner misleads another person as a joint business owner of the pertinent business and makes transactions by misunderstanding that the nominal owner is the joint business owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2130, Jan. 24, 2008).