The judgment C itself on the cause of claim as to the claim as to Defendant B is merely the trade name of an individual company and thus cannot be a separate contracting party. Since there is no provision of a goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the parties to the contract should be determined on the basis of who is the actor of the transaction with the Plaintiff.

There is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions and shapes of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, it is recognized that the nominal owner of the business registration C was the defendant A, and that the promissory note endorsed by the defendant A was paid for the settlement of the price for the plaintiff's goods.

However, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s order, supply, and payment are Defendant B; Defendant B prepared and delivered a redemption plan regarding the amount of the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff; Defendant B delivered a promissory note for the settlement of the goods price to the Plaintiff; Defendant B made a direct endorsement; Defendant B paid KRW 2 million on August 25, 2014 to the Plaintiff from the account in the name of the Plaintiff during the instant lawsuit; and Defendant B paid KRW 6 million on September 18, 2014 to the Plaintiff as the price of the goods; Defendant B’s workplace employees are only Defendant B, and Defendant B’s child is also recognized.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the party who entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff is the Defendant B, and according to the evidence that there is no dispute between the parties, or the Defendant B’s obligation to purchase the goods is recognized as the cause of 86,721,400, barring any special circumstances.