The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur operating food material distribution business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who registered his/her business with the trade name “H” in the restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) operated in Ansan-si D building E, F, and G (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. From January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied food materials equivalent to KRW 21,150,000 to the instant restaurant, and the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 9,468,00 among them.

(hereinafter “The price unpaid”). 【The ground for recognition of the instant case’s existence of no dispute, Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion is that the Plaintiff supplied food materials of KRW 21,150,00 to the instant restaurant from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, but only received KRW 11,682,00 out of the above money. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount as the operator of the instant restaurant.

Preliminaryly, even if the Defendant is not the operator of the instant restaurant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid payment to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the name of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff is obliged to operate the instant restaurant under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, and as the Plaintiff indicates the granting of the power to represent the overall affairs of the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the unpaid payment to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant only lent the name to I and did not directly operate the instant restaurant, and the Plaintiff knew or could have sufficiently known the name of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot seek the amount unpaid from the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the primary claim, and the facts that the operator of the restaurant in this case is the name of the defendant, as seen earlier, and the evidence No. 2 of this case.