2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From August 21, 2015 to November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the main shop located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building and the second underground floor (hereinafter “instant main shop”) and was not reimbursed KRW 16,928,000 out of the price of the goods.

B. The Defendant entered into a contract for store use with the content that B shall use the instant main points from June 9, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and pay the Defendant KRW 20 million per month as the fees for the use of the instant main points, as a business registration holder of the instant main points, on August 7, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is the actual operator of the instant main shop, who was supplied with alcoholic beverages by the Plaintiff, and that B is merely entrusted with the management thereof by the Defendant, that the Defendant is obligated to pay the liquor price of the instant main shop to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, during the period from August 21, 2015 to November 30, 2015, whether the Defendant had actually operated the instant main points, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact, and there is no other evidence. Rather, according to the above-mentioned evidence and the statements in Section B to Section B and Section B, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, since B, while paying rent of KRW 20 million to the Defendant during the above period, is able to recognize the fact that he actually operated the instant main points and received the relevant alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff.

B. Next, the Plaintiff actually operated the instant main points, even if so,

Even if the defendant had the main points of this case registered under his own name operate to B, the defendant asserts to the effect that he is liable for the name of the name holder.

Article 24 of the Commercial Code provides for another person.