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

A. 1) D as the father of the Defendant, D registered its business in the name of the Defendant with the name of “E” and operated a general restaurant business. 2) B is the Plaintiff’s side and the Plaintiff’s attorney.

B. No. 1) The contract document signed on May 28, 2019, stating that the Defendant is supplied with the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff is supplied with the goods in KRW 5,620,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”). The contract document signed on May 28, 2019 is “the instant contract” and “the instant contract.”

2) The instant contract was drawn up by B and D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

D concluded the instant contract as the representative of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff fulfilled all the obligations under the instant contract.

However, the defendant did not pay any balance of 43,704,800 won.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the above money and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As to who is a party to a contract where an actor who entered into a related legal doctrine was engaged in a legal act in the name of another person, if the actor and the other party agree with each other, then the actor or the title holder shall be determined as the party to the contract according to the same intent. If the other party does not coincide with the intent of the actor and the other party, based on the various circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature and purpose of the contract, the other party shall be determined by whom the actor and the title holder would understand as the party to the contract

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089, Mar. 13, 1998). Meanwhile, insofar as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court has no counter-proof.