1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1 supplied the Plaintiff with the trade name of “C”, which is a business operator running the business of selling the compact presses A/S and parts, and through D around August 2013, 2013, the Defendant supplied the compact presses and related parts at E business establishment registered by the Defendant. D issued a business registration certificate with the Defendant’s representative via the Defendant. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant’s business registration certificate from August 15, 2013 to May 20, 2014 (including additional taxes) equivalent to KRW 18,040,000, among which the Defendant paid only KRW 2,850,000 to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant was a party to a contract for the supply of goods, or D concluded a contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, and even if the Defendant concluded a contract for the supply of goods under the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable for the payment of unpaid goods to the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. Defendant 1) A is the real representative of D and the Defendant only lent the name to D. Since August 15, 2013, D was engaged in the transaction of goods with the Plaintiff, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to the claim and obligation relationship that occurred in the past on October 20, 2014 by E, which was established by D. Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware that D was the actual operator of E or was unaware due to gross negligence. Thus, the Defendant is not liable for the nominal lender under the Commercial Act.

2. Determination

A. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as a contracting party, the Plaintiff is a person to whom E representing the Defendant is supplied.