1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose is to manufacture and sell plastic containers, and the Defendant is a person who registered his/her business with the trade name “C” on October 1, 2014.

B. From December 31, 2013 to November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied “C” with the packaging containers, but failed to receive KRW 152,260,180, out of the price of the goods.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant issued a business registration certificate to the Plaintiff’s own name and issued it to D.

D The Plaintiff referred to as “a business operator registered in the name of the Defendant, who is an infant, and is engaged in the same business”, and the Plaintiff traded the horses for a period of time to believe that D’s horses were reliable.

The defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the price of goods with D pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act as the name truster.

B. Defendant D’s business registration was made by lending the name of the Defendant, who is an infant, and the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact of the name lending from the beginning.

3. Determination

A. A person who permits another person to run his/her business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable with the third person who trades his/her own name or trade name with the other person as the proprietor of the business.

(Article 24 of the Commercial Act). 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 titleholder as an employer. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the nominal lender, he/she shall not be held liable. In such a case, whether the other party to the transaction knew of or was negligent in making the fact of the nominal lender

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da18309 delivered on November 12, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512 delivered on April 13, 2001, etc.) B.

Whether or not to recognize the liability of the nominal lender A, respectively, subparagraph 1 to 6.