1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts constituting the premise for judgment

A. Business registration was completed with respect to the manufacturing and selling business of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the trade name “C” in the name of the Defendant

(hereinafter “instant project”). (b)

During the period from May 14, 2012 to April 14, 2013, D, the father of the Defendant, borrowed a total of KRW 85,174,550 (hereinafter “the instant money”) from the Plaintiff on several occasions as business funds.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant permitted D to register its business under the name of the Defendant and to operate the instant business, and thus, is liable to repay the instant money borrowed from D to the Plaintiff as a business owner pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act. 2) The fact that D used the bank account established in the name of the Defendant in the course of running the instant business is not disputed between the parties, but it is insufficient to recognize that D has permitted D to use its name with respect to the instant business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that D has permitted the use of its name with respect to the instant business.

(M) In light of the purport of the oral argument as a whole, evidence Nos. 4 and 2, and witness D’s testimony, D’s registration of business under the name of the Defendant without notifying the Defendant of the need for business and opening and using a bank account under the name of the Defendant is recognized). The snows permitted the Defendant to accept D’s request and complete registration of business under the name of the Defendant.

Even if 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 a business owner, and if the other party to the transaction knew or knew of the nominal name, it is grossly negligent.