1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The facts of recognition B is a person who entered into a so-called "land entry contract" with the defendant and entered a three-dimensional bus, and the defendant is a incorporated company registered as the owner of the bus.

From May 24, 2014 to July 27, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied transit equivalent to KRW 4,822,842 to the bus at the request of B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap's 1, 4, 8 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As a general rule, a vehicle that enters a company is subject to an external ownership or a right to manage the vehicle, and thus, even if a branch owner directly operates or manages the vehicle, the branch owner is merely acting on behalf of the company in the ordinary operations and management.

However, in the course of the oil supply transaction that falls under ordinary business affairs, in special circumstances where the oil supplier, who is the other party, had no intent to act for the other party on behalf of the other party to the transaction with the company, shall be deemed to have entered into an agreement under which only the other party to whom the oil was supplied, bears the oil cost (hereinafter “individual special agreement”) (hereinafter “individual special agreement”), the other party shall bear the oil cost.

(Supreme Court Decision 93Da7341 delivered on May 27, 1993). B

According to the above facts, even if B, a land owner, directly managed and operated the above bus, which is a vehicle for the use of the above bus, since the oil supply transaction of the above bus constitutes a delegated business belonging to the defendant's ordinary business, which is a branch company with the right to external operation and management of the above bus, it is reasonable to view that the above oil supply transaction is in principle the plaintiff and the defendant.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the above oil supply transaction is the plaintiff B, the defendant is a party to the above oil supply transaction, so it is examined as a separate special agreement, and the plaintiff B.