물품대금
1. The defendant shall pay 3,373,600 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from January 17, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
1. Where the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the paper numbers), the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff has not paid 3,373,600 won for the supply of agricultural products, such as the defendant's drilling and drilling, and that the plaintiff has not paid 33,373,600 won for the goods (the estimated 15,798,600 won, the estimated 17,575,00 won).
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,373,60 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 17, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that although the defendant is a business entity of D points, he/she actually lends his/her name to the type E running the above business, and he/she does not have any participation in the operation, and therefore, he/she does not have any obligation to pay the price for goods to the plaintiff.
However, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant is merely a nominal lender only on the basis of each of the statements stated in Nos. 1 and 3, and even if the Defendant is a nominal lender.
Even if 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 the business owner, and thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name, he/she is not liable. In such a case, the nominal lender who asserts exemption from liability bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant and all circumstances
The defendant's argument is without merit.
3. To accept the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion on the grounds of merit.