1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she concluded an entrustment management contract with the Defendant on the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). Since the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 9,071,050,050, insurance money, management expenses, and other taxes and public charges to be borne by the Defendant under the instant contract, the instant contract is terminated by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,071,050 and the delay damages therefor, and to take over the transfer registration procedure for the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff on the ground of termination of the instant contract.

B. The Defendant’s father F, who was the Defendant’s assertiond bad credit holder, entered into the instant contract by lending the Defendant’s name, and the Plaintiff was aware of such name lending, and thus, the Defendant is not liable under the instant contract.

2. A person who has permitted another person to run his/her business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable with the latter to pay back to the third person who has transacted with him/her mistakenly as the owner of the business

(Article 24 of the Commercial Act). The liability of the nominal lender is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as a business owner, and thus, is not liable if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the nominal owner.

At this time, the nominal lender who claims exemption bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew or was grossly negligent on the part of the other party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da10512 delivered on April 13, 2001). In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the Defendant’s fatherF participated in the Defendant’s seal impression and seal impression, etc., and entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not attend.