1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is the business owner of "D", and C (the husband of the defendant) is the actual operator of the above D.

From July 2013, the Plaintiff has made a transaction to be supplied with waste resources after paying money in advance to the Defendant and C as advance payment.

However, even if the Defendant and C received advance payment from the Plaintiff, they did not supply waste resources from around 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant and C should return KRW 3,255,600, an amount equivalent to the period during which the waste resources were not supplied among the advance paid to the Plaintiff jointly and severally.

2. On the basis of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was either an operator of “D” or a person operating “D” with “D”, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3 and 1 through 3, the defendant and his husband C have registered the business on January 31, 2012, with the location of the place of business as "Yyang-gu E", the trade name as "D", the type of business as "spaw-gu E", and the type of "D", and the defendant and C have re-registered the business on October 1, 2012 with the location of the place of business under the name of "Yongyang-gu, Yangyang-gu," the trade name as "D", and the type of business as "do recycling business."

Therefore, without any need to examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is the business owner of the foregoing “D” or the Plaintiff’s business relationship with “D”, is without merit.

3...