A. The Plaintiff is engaged in wholesale and retail business of agricultural and fishery products with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant was engaged in restaurant business with the trade name of “E” from the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City D and the second floor.

B. From March 2016 to May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied food materials equivalent to KRW 29,806,90 in total to the restaurant operated by the Defendant, i.e., rain, soft, and kimchi, and the Defendant paid KRW 6,00,000 out of the price of the above food materials.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of 23,806,900 won (=29,806,900 won - 6,000,000 won) excluding the Defendant’s amount of goods paid to the Plaintiff as the price for goods, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 22, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's business right of the restaurant operated by the defendant was transferred to F, and the defendant was in possession of only the name, and since the goods transaction alleged by the plaintiff was conducted between the plaintiff and G, a director of F, the plaintiff and F, the defendant did not have an obligation to pay the goods to the plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the transaction of goods from March 2016 to May 27, 2016 took place between the Plaintiff and the F (or G) corporation.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, it is only recognized that the other party to the transaction list is the defendant, and the price of the goods was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.