1. The defendant shall pay 24,590,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from October 14, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 9, 2012, the Defendant operated the main store (hereinafter “instant main store”) after completing the business registration of the trade name “D” in the Defendant’s name at the 1st floor of Ulsan-gu C building leased by B.

B. On March 30, 2013, the Defendant agreed to transfer all of the rights, including the instant main points, to B, including the instant main points and business rights, at premium of KRW 40 million, and B subleaseed the instant main points to E on April 9, 2013.

At the time, the defendant allowed E to use the business registration under the name of the defendant as it is.

C. The Plaintiff sold alcoholic beverages to the instant main points from March 9, 2012 to June 30, 2014, and the sum of the sales proceeds accrued from March 31, 2013 to the present main points is KRW 24,590,000.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff supplied liquor to the Defendant by June 30, 2014, and the Defendant is obligated to pay 24,590,000 won for the goods unpaid and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

(2) does not so.

Even if the Plaintiff was the business owner of the instant main store, the Plaintiff believed the Defendant as the business owner and supplied the alcoholic beverages to the main store of this case. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price of goods to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. In light of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and witness B’s testimony, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was a party to a alcoholic beverage supply transaction after March 31, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Whether the nominal name holder is liable (1) The business registration of the instant main office is the name of the defendant, and the defendant uses the name of the defendant to E.