1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. From May 25, 2011 to December 30, 2011, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 98,286,667 (hereinafter “instant alcoholic beverages”) to an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”) under the trade name “C(D)” located in Daegu Suwon-gu B (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”).

B. Business registration of the instant entertainment tavern was made in the name of the Defendant from May 201 to December 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul's Evidence Nos. 4 through 11 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At least, at the time of supplying the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant operated the instant entertainment bars as E and the instant entertainment bars, and the Defendant is also obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant liquor price.

However, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 10,986,830 out of the liquor price of this case 98,286,667 and its delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the actual operator of the entertainment tavern in this case is E, and the defendant lends only the name of the business operator to E, and the plaintiff also supplied alcoholic beverages with the first knowledge of such circumstances, so the defendant is not obliged to pay the liquor price in this case to

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of each entry and argument in the evidence Nos. 3 and 13, namely, ① E and the Defendant have transferred KRW 57,150,000 in the passbook in their own name to the account of F for alcoholic beverages supplied to the entertainment tavern in this case, and the Defendant has transferred KRW 154,493,00 in total to the account of F (hereinafter “the money in this case”) under the pretext of alcoholic beverages supplied to the entertainment tavern in this case. ② The Defendant alleged that the Defendant was operating the entertainment tavern in this case with E and the same business at the time of supplying the instant alcoholic beverage in this case. In light of the fact that the Defendant alleged that he was distributed the profits of the entertainment tavern in this case as “one president”, the Defendant appears to have been running the entertainment tavern in this case as at the time of supplying the instant alcoholic beverage in this case, and the testimony and testimony of the witness E and evidence No. 2-1 in this case contrary thereto.