Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the sales business of naphtha and wire ropes, and the Defendant is a person registered as a business operator on October 5, 2016 with the trade name “C” to run the transportation business, and D is a person who used the Defendant’s trade name to operate the actual transportation business using the E vehicle.

B. On June 28, 2018 and July 17, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 1810,000,00,000 to D, including transfer, etc., and the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 330,000 on July 30, 2018 and KRW 630,000 on September 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff supplied the above goods to the Defendant, who is the business title, and that the Defendant paid part of the purchase price, and that the Defendant should pay the remainder of the purchase price (=180,000 won - 630,000 won) and damages for delay.

On April 23, 2018, the defendant discontinued the business in the name of C on April 23, 2018, and the party supplied goods from the plaintiff on June 28, 2018 and July 17, 2018 asserts that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case against the defendant is groundless.

(b) A person who permits another person to run his/her business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay back to a third party who has transacted his/her business misleading that person as the proprietor of the business.

(Article 24 of the Commercial Act). As to the fact that the defendant lent his business registration name to D, the defendant also recognized in the first instance trial process (the first instance trial record dated November 13, 2019), and as long as the defendant paid part of the amount of goods supplied to D after obtaining the defendant's business registration certificate, the plaintiff is deemed to have been mistaken for the defendant as the business owner, and the defendant paid part of the amount of goods after the closedown date.