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

A. The Defendant is the nominal owner of the business registration of “D” whose place of business is C in Nam-ju City.

“D” was closed on July 31, 2017.

B. On May 25, 2017, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) was established in the same place as D’s place of business.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff supplied goods, such as grain, to the Defendant until July 5, 2017, and was not paid KRW 62,296,125. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 35,943,750 as part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant. 2) According to the purport of the evidence No. 3-1, No. 4, and No. 5, and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff supplied goods, such as grain, to “D,” which the Defendant became a business entity until July 5, 2017. As of July 5, 2017, the Plaintiff’s balance of the goods price against the Defendant as of KRW 37,01,250 (hereinafter “the remainder of the goods in this case”) is recognized as having no obligation to pay KRW 34,94,750 as part of the goods in this case (hereinafter “the remaining balance of the goods in this case”), and the remaining balance of the goods in this case as evidence and evidence No. 35, barring any special circumstance to the Plaintiff’s. 34 and the remaining balance.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The F and G (hereinafter “F, etc.”) alleged as to the allegation on the name lending claim have been traded with the Plaintiff from around 2015, and have been making transactions with the Defendant after completing the business registration of the name “D” in the Defendant’s name.

The plaintiff is the actual business owner of "D" and the defendant was aware of the fact that he is the nominal lender, and therefore there is no obligation to pay the price of goods to the defendant.

B) Judgment B 3 to 7 (including virtual numbers) by the Defendant F, etc.