1. The Defendant’s order for payment was issued against the Defendant’s Plaintiff on December 12, 2014, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company that supplies original and original specifications for wholesale.

B. The Plaintiff is a person registered as a business entity from around March 4, 201 to around March 4, 2014 with a trade name, which is a business entity that produces and sells clothing supplied with the original team.

C. Around July 20, 2013, the Defendant received an order of 61,600,000 Won Won (CM (CM 30; hereinafter “instant original company”) from E, which operated D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and supplied it at the end of the same month, and was not paid the price.

As to the amount of unpaid goods, the Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 30,800,000 each in the name of C on October 1, 2013 and November 4, 2013 from the Plaintiff, and received KRW 12,00,000 from the account in the name of C on December 6, 2013.

E. C was closed on July 31, 2014, when the name of the business operator was changed to F on March 5, 2014.

F. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant received a payment order against the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 49,600,000 which was unpaid out of the price of the said goods (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”) and damages for delay, and the said payment order became final and conclusive due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”) 2. Claim and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) the price of the goods in this case is about the original owner of the goods ordered by the overseas exporter of the trade name "D, not the plaintiff," which is operated by Eul, and C was the domestic internal owner of the goods operated by Eul. The plaintiff merely lent his business name to the employee in this case, and the defendant was well aware that E is the actual operator in this case, so the plaintiff does not bear the obligation to pay for the goods in this case against the defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

(2) The Plaintiff was not the nominal name holder of Defendant E, but the actual operator of C.

C operated by the Plaintiff is E around July 2013.