1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that "F" of the 2nd judgment is "K".

On the ground of the first instance judgment of 4 minutes, the part of the judgment, "A defendant C acquired the existing transaction payment obligation," "The defendant C continues transactions with the company including the plaintiff as a trading agent, while taking over the existing claim and obligation, such as E, as a trading agent."

The reasoning of the first instance judgment No. 4-5 is as follows: “Defendant B shall be deemed as the nominal lender,” “Defendant B shall have assumed the obligation arising from the existing transactions of Defendant C, or lent the name to Defendant C.”

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “The Defendants jointly and severally liable for KRW 31,529,000 for the amount of goods up to November 2017” in the 5-6th sentence, stating that “The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiff to pay KRW 31,529,000 for the remaining amount of agricultural products supplied from September 2017 to November 2017.”

The second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance states that “First, the testimony by the witness H of the court of first instance is insufficient to deem that Defendant B assumed the obligation arising from the existing transaction by Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant B permitted Defendant C to conduct the business by using his name with respect to the transaction that caused the Plaintiff’s claim for payment prior to the registration of the business.”

The third second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be seen as follows.

In full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the testimony of the witness H in the first instance trial, it is insufficient to view Defendant C as the party involved in the transaction that the Plaintiff is the debtor of the claim for payment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Rather, Party A’s 1 to Party A.