물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff is a person who sells various kinds of meat with the trade name “D” in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendant is a juristic person operating “F” in Ansan-si E, Ansan-si, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 as the business guarantee money (supply guarantee money). From September 1, 2012 to July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the meat until July 30, 2013. The fact that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 44,702,40 out of the price of the goods accrued until the time did not dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 1,2,00,00 among the price of the goods accrued until the time, or that the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, subparagraph 1-2, subparagraph 2, subparagraph 3-1, 2, subparagraph 3-2, 3, A, subparagraph 4, and 6, respectively, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff as a party to the contract entered into a land supply contract with the defendant, delivered 10,000,000 won to the defendant under the business guarantee money (supply guarantee money). Since the goods were supplied with the land as above after being paid in full in cash, and the goods were supplied with the land, but did not receive 44,702,40 won out of the price of the goods, the defendant must return the business guarantee money to the plaintiff as a party to the contract and pay the unpaid goods.
B) Even if the Defendant’s liability for the nominal lender’s name is not a contracting party, and even if he lends his name to G, the Defendant’s representative director’s liability for the Defendant’s assertion of liability as a contracting party as to the Plaintiff’s claim as to the Plaintiff’s claim of liability as a contracting party, since the Defendant had G operate F using the Defendant’s name and had the Plaintiff receive goods supplied from the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is jointly and severally with G, and the Defendant should return the said business bonds and pay the unpaid goods. 2) The Defendant did not conclude the land supply contract with the Plaintiff or receive the money in the name of the business bonds from September 1, 2012 to July 30, 2014.