1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion C sold rice to the Defendant operating D, and the amount of the unpaid goods reaches KRW 104,294,000.

The defendant is obligated to pay the price of the above goods to the plaintiff, and even if the defendant is not a party to the transaction, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the goods as a name truster pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

2. In full view of the judgment and conclusion of the judgment and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the entire arguments, the plaintiff operating Eul supplied rice to Eul with the business place of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, the business place of Gyeyang-gu, and the non-paid goods amounting to KRW 104,294,000 on June 26, 2017, and the fact that the defendant is the business registration holder of Eul.

However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1, 2, 2, and 5-2, 3, and 5-2, 2, 3, and 5-2, the testimony of witnesses F, and the purport of the whole pleadings, F is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was a party to a rice sales contract or that the Plaintiff was engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the name of H or D after registering each business in the name of the Defendant from around 2005 to around 2013, from around 2014, and the Plaintiff supplied rice to H or D. Since around 12 years before the Plaintiff. In light of the above, it is recognized that the direct transaction consultation was conducted with H or D, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant was a party to a rice sales contract or the plaintiff was involved in a transaction with the defendant as a business owner is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.