2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of fishery products.

B. From July 2013, the Defendant’s mother C operated the restaurant in the Seoul Southern-gu F and G (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

C. From July 2013 to January 2018, the Plaintiff supplied the instant restaurant with fishery products, including return and falling, but not paid KRW 158,181,00, out of the price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (including branch numbers in case of additional evidence), witness H's witness H's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Where a party to a contract of judgment on the liability as a contracting party has done a juristic act using another person's name at will, if the intent of the actor and the other party as to whom the actor or the nominal person are the party coincide, the act of the actor or the nominal person shall be decided as the act of the nominal person according to the consistent intent. However, if it is impossible to confirm the consistent intention, the other party shall be determined by determining the party as to whom the actor and nominal person should understand as the contracting party if it is reasonable, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da5385, Oct. 13, 1995). According to the respective statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 (including the number of pages), witness H’s testimony, and the whole purport of oral argument, J and I (which appears to have agreed to operate the restaurant of this case inside with J and I) are deemed to have been mainly in charge of the operation of the restaurant of this case, such as receipt of fishery products or payment of the price, etc. In the event of delinquency of fishery products, H’s employee in charge of the restaurant of this case’s payment to C.