1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,059,090 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 30, 2014 to March 17, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells medical devices, medicine, etc., and the Defendant, from August 201 to December 1, 2014, served as the representative of the mutual hospital called “B” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) and as the president of the said hospital.

B. From February 2, 2014 to July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to supply the instant hospital with pharmaceutical medicine, equipment, etc., and the price that was not paid for the supply of the goods as above is KRW 20,059,090.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 17-3, Eul evidence 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as the representative of the instant hospital, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20,059,090 for the goods and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from July 30, 2014 to March 17, 2015, which is the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, which is the day of delivery of the Plaintiff’s final goods supply, to the day of full payment.

B. On August 201, the Defendant asserts that the instant hospital was entrusted to the head of the administrative office of the instant hospital upon request from C who actually operated the instant hospital, and that the Plaintiff was merely the nominal name holder of the instant hospital, and that the Plaintiff was well aware of such fact, and thus, there was no liability to pay the price for the said goods.

On the other hand, even if the defendant is only the nominal lender of the hospital of this case as alleged by the defendant, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff continued to engage in the transaction, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff knew of the name lending or was gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is with merit.