1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an enterprise selling appliances, such as strings for vehicles, etc., and B, a motor vehicle maintenance plant (hereinafter “instant maintenance plant”) was continuously traded since the first supply of the goods on April 9, 201 to the Defendant operating the motor vehicle maintenance plant. The Plaintiff was not paid 890,000 won for strings, wheelchairss, etc. supplied between April 12, 2013 and January 17, 2014.

At the time of the first commencement of transaction with B on April 9, 2011, the Plaintiff was indicated as the Defendant’s representative on the business registration certificate, and thereafter, was not notified that he leased B workplace to another person.

In other words, since the plaintiff provided the goods with the belief that only B is the business operator without knowledge of the internal situation, the defendant, the business operator title holder, should pay the remaining amount of KRW 890,000 to the plaintiff and delay damages.

B. The Defendant did not have any participation in the operation of B, and only leased the instant maintenance plant in sequence to C, D, E, and F, an actual operator.

Such a method of lease is a common figure in the operation of a maintenance plant, and if a person engaged in a maintenance business, it is well aware of such long-standing practice, and the plaintiff also knew of such fact and did not receive the price from the actual operator and did not receive the price from the actual operator, the claim in this case is filed against the defendant who is merely the nominal owner.

2. Determination

A. According to each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number) as to whether the defendant is a party to a contract for the supply of goods, the registration of the business of the maintenance plant of this case was completed in the name of the defendant, and can be recognized that tax invoices, electronic tax invoices, etc. were issued in the name of the defendant and the money was remitted to the plaintiff's passbook. However, according to each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 15, the defendant is the defendant.