1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s mother C, at a D shop located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, registered the business under the Defendant’s name while selling clothes.

B. From March 7, 2013 to October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff wired KRW 18,760,000 in total to the account under the name of the Defendant over ten occasions.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was C to allow C to make business registration under his/her name and to use the post office account in his/her name.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff lent money to C on the premise that it would be repaid with the sales of the above store, and that the Defendant and C were in a family relationship, the Defendant is liable to pay C the above borrowed money to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender.

3. Determination as follows: The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is limited to a third party who misleads the nominal lender as the business owner and trades with the nominal user within the scope of the business, and thus, the nominal lender shall not be liable for any transactions other than the scope of the business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1852 delivered on March 22, 1983, etc.). There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff, in this case, remitted money to the Defendant’s account while lending money to C.

However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff traded the Defendant as a business owner solely on the ground that the Defendant had C use his/her passbook and wired money to the passbook.

In addition, it is difficult to view the above lending of money as a transaction within the business scope of the clothing sales business in which the defendant lent the name to C.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff believed to lend the above money to the Defendant and that it is within the scope of the above business, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is traded by mistake as the nominal owner.