A. Defendant B is a contracting party who entered into a aggregate supply contract with the Plaintiff, and even if not, is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The primary claim: (a) according to the evidence evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 7 as a contracting party, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice from April 30, 2014 to September 30, 2016 with the recipient of “Defendant B” from April 30, 2014 to September 27, 2016; and (b) despite the fact that the price for the goods was paid to the Plaintiff from July 27, 2015 in the name of the Defendant B, the following circumstances may be known in light of the purport of each period of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the Plaintiff appears to have issued a tax invoice with the recipient of the goods transaction with Defendant C from April 30, 201 to April 30, 201, and (b) the Plaintiff appears to have received a demand for aggregate from the Defendant B, and (c) the Plaintiff had concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of the goods to the Defendant C, solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

The supply of goods to Defendant B is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. The liability of the nominal name lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal name as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of the fact of the nominal name or was grossly negligent in making the nominal name known, the nominal name lender shall not be held liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da48735, Oct. 17, 2013).