1. The defendant shall pay 31,880,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from May 17, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

The fact that the Plaintiff supplied petroleum equivalent to KRW 132,022,00 (including value-added tax) to the “C gas station” located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, which was operated by the Defendant between July 1, 2013 and August 31, 2013, and received KRW 100,142,00 from the Defendant can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100,142,00 from the Defendant; and (b) the entire purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the witness D.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 31,880,000 won (i.e., 132,022,00 won - 100,142,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 17, 2014 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case as sought by the plaintiff after the above oil supply date.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the actual operator of the above C-ownership station is non-party D, and that the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the oil price to the plaintiff merely because the name holder who had registered the business in the former name with non-party E who had operated the C-ownership station at D's recommendation. Thus, the defendant's evidence alone submitted by the defendant is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, since the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect the third party who transacted by mistake as the nominal owner, the nominal owner is not liable if the other party to the transaction knew of the fact of the nominal name or was grossly negligent in the process of making the nominal name, but the nominal owner bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew of the nominal name or was grossly negligent in making the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2130, Jan. 24, 2008).