1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2006, the Plaintiff wired KRW 40 million to a corporate bank passbook under Defendant B’s name. On March 8, 2006, the Plaintiff wired KRW 30 million from the above passbook to the Defendant C’s passbook on March 8, 2006.

B. As to the above KRW 40 million, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B had jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow KRW 40 million, and filed a lawsuit against Defendant D and Defendant B for the claim for loans and deposits. The judgment against the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding loan amounting to KRW 30 million among the above KRW 40 million, and the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered on the ground that Defendant B cannot recognize the Plaintiff’s status as the guarantor, and became final and conclusive around that time.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da48431, Ulsan District Court Decision 2009Na4503, 2008Gadan20255). [Reasons for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 40 million to D on March 7, 2006, to Defendant B upon D’s request.

Therefore, Defendant B permitted the use of its own passbook D, and thus, Defendant B is liable for damages similar to that of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act for the said unpaid amount of KRW 30 million, or is liable for damages as a tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act or Article 49(4) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and the Defendant C, who was transferred KRW 30 million out of the said KRW 40 million, also has the obligation to return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Defendant B’s assertion was around 2003, the Defendant lent its corporate bank account to E, who is the female students of D, living in the Philippines. However, D was using the said account to receive money from the Plaintiff, and Defendant B was entirely unaware of the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and D.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40 million to the account under Defendant B’s name is as seen earlier.