1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. B, on May 7, 2014, completed business registration under the name of the Defendant, who is his wife, and began to operate a snick-line farming business with the trade name of “D” in the former Sungsung-gun.

B. The Plaintiff supplied D feed from March 2015 to October 2015, but did not receive KRW 7,180,000 out of the price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and supplied the Defendant with the feed to D. 2) Even if the Defendant is not liable as a contracting party, the Defendant consented to conduct the business in its name, and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the feed to D by mistake as a business owner. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the above feed to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner.

B. Determination 1) In light of the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff traded B with the knowledge of the business owner, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied feed to the Defendant by itself, and there is no other evidence otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for the payment of this case premised on the receipt of feed from the Plaintiff as a contracting party cannot be accepted. 2) The Defendant’s liability for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades with the mistake of the nominal owner as the business owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal lender’s name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). In this case, the Plaintiff confessions that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact of nominal name of the Defendant, and therefore, the Defendant is not liable as the nominal lender.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is not correct.