Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

(1) The Defendant’s father C aggravated health while operating the culture center in Donnam-do (hereinafter “instant culture center”), and the Defendant began to conduct the affairs relating to the operation of the instant culture center from around December 2013.

(2) On December 10, 2013, the Defendant registered a business operator with respect to the instant aquaculture, and has maintained the above business registration until now.

(3) On November 2014, the Plaintiff sold the 100,000 Ma Ri, which would be cultivated in the instant aquaculture, around November 2014.

The plaintiff sold the uniforms to the defendant.

The defendant asserts that the other party who sold the previous uniforms is C, and the above decision shall be made below.

(4) On July 21, 2015, C died (hereinafter “the Deceased”) (hereinafter “the Deceased”) and without dispute. As a result of the Plaintiff’s response to October 23, 2019 regarding the order to submit tax information to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the first instance court on the duty of taxation, the question is whether the party to the contract is the party to the contract, who sold the transaction counterpart’s transaction counterpart’s 100,000 mama, which the Plaintiff sold the entire purport of the pleading.

If the parties agree with each other, the parties to the contract shall be determined according to their intention.

However, if the intent of the parties is not consistent, it should be determined on the basis of whom a reasonable person had understood as a party to a contract from the perspective of the other party’s expression of intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da237691, Sept. 10, 2019, etc.). Specific, the deceased’s health has deteriorated while operating the instant aquaculture, and the Defendant, who is the deceased’s infant, started to conduct the business of operating the instant aquaculture around December 2013, and the Plaintiff was cultivated in the instant model, a business owner’s name, around November 2014.