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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business of agricultural products, fishery products, livestock products, and wholesale and retail business, and the Defendant is a person who registered his/her business as a representative of “C” (Korean style, Chinese style, and Chinese style) restaurant business with B.

B. On November 2011, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement on the E underground restaurant between E and the incorporated foundation E upon receiving a request from Dong N, and registered its business as the representative of "C".

After that, D operated the “C” and transferred the business of the “C” to B around April 2014, and around that time B registered the business of the Defendant and joint business operators with respect to the “C” as a joint business operator, and actually operated the “C”.

C. From July 2015 to March 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the fishery products and frozen foods of KRW 18,096,800 in total to “C”, and received payment of KRW 12,328,000, which is a part of the price, from the account in the name of “C” to the account in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A person who has permitted another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay back to a third party who trades his/her own name and trade name to the owner of the business (Article 24 of the Commercial Act): Provided, That the liability of a nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades his/her name by misunderstanding the nominal holder as the business owner, and thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in finding the nominal name, he/she shall not be liable. In this case, whether the other party to the transaction knew of or was gross

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant has the trade name “C” with D and B.