1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The term of a sales contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 6, 2013.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 4:

Around November 6, 2013, Defendant companies engaged in the manufacturing, sale, distribution, etc. of milk-processed products enter into a sales contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”) and supplied milk products to “E stores established in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “E stores”) by October 2014.

B. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. with the content of the guarantee that covers the payment guarantee for credit goods, the payment guarantee for the insured, the Defendant, the insurance amount of KRW 20,000,000, and the insurance period from October 28, 2013 to October 27, 2014.

C. The Defendant filed a claim for payment of performance guarantee insurance against Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer on the ground that the Plaintiff did not perform its obligation to pay goods.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff had a claim against C with respect to the Plaintiff, but C had no good credit standing, and thus offered that B would enter into the instant contract under the Plaintiff’s name and would be able to receive a milk product and repay the obligation with the profit therefrom. The Plaintiff leased only the business owner’s name to C.

The defendant is merely a nominal name holder and it is well known that C actually operates the instant agency. Thus, the instant contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void as it constitutes a juristic act due to false conspiracy.

Therefore, the Plaintiff refers to the insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation in the complaint for the payment of goods under the instant contract.