1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who operates an individual enterprise under the trade name of "C", supplied goods, such as AC gold-type tree, 8, 7, and strawls from April 2010 to November 9, 2012, and that the proceeds of attempted money remains 10,709,000 won. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the proceeds of the above attempted money.

The Defendant operated “C” solely on the basis of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, 3, Gap evidence 3, and Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and 3-3

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the alleged goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Plaintiff received orders from “D” from “D” until 2011, and from “C” in 2012, both of which are the husband of the Defendant and received orders from “E”.

In addition, since the plaintiff also has the business registration of the trade name "D" under the name of "C" and there is no business registration of the trade name "C", there is no room for the defendant to be held liable for the name truster under Article 24 of the Commercial Act. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.