물품대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Defendant is a personal business entity engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business of functional health foods, etc. under the trade name of “B.”
B. On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied “F” in accordance with C’s order, which is equivalent to KRW 2,5740,000,00, in the amount of KRW 2,5740,00,000, printed” I “products stuffed” (hereinafter “instant goods”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, and 6 evidence (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), G of the first instance court, testimony of the witness C of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that, since the defendant or the defendant supplied the goods of this case in accordance with the C's order of lending his name, the defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods of this case in accordance with the goods supply contract or according to Article 24 of the Commercial Act's liability.
As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff was aware of or was grossly negligent when he knew of the fact of the name lending, in light of the fact that no contract was entered into with the plaintiff for the supply of the goods of this case, that he had allowed C to use the name for one year on October 12, 2009, and that the name lending was not made in relation to the goods of this case, and that the location of the place of business is different
B. It is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and 6, witness G of the first instance court, and witness C of this court alone concluded a contract for the supply of the goods of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that C entered into a supply contract for the instant goods with the Plaintiff at will without the Defendant’s instruction.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.