물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 10, 201, the Plaintiff is a person engaged in land-based retail business with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person registered as a business operator of the head office “E” (hereinafter “E”) located in Jeonsan-gu, Jeoncheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant store”), and F is the Defendant’s mother.
B. The Plaintiff supplied the instant stores from October 201 to February 2013, 201, and during the said period, the Plaintiff paid the price to the Plaintiff from the account in the Defendant’s name.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff supplied the instant store operated by the Defendant under the land supply contract with the Defendant. Even if the Defendant did not directly conclude a contract with the Plaintiff, the contracting party is basically determined on the basis of “titler” in the case of commercial transactions, and the Plaintiff also provided the instant store with the Plaintiff with the awareness of “Defendant,” a nominal business operator, as a trading party. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 17,490,700,00, which is the attempted money of the instant store. 2) Even if the Defendant is not the actual business owner of the instant store, the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to use the Defendant’s deposit account as a business owner, and accordingly, the Plaintiff provided the land system with the Defendant believed the Defendant as a business owner, and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with F and the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. Defendant 1’s mother, as his mother, permits the registration of the business of Hopbook run by F to be registered in the name of the Defendant and to use the Defendant’s deposit account. As such, the Defendant entered into a land supply contract with the Plaintiff.