1. The defendant's purchase price case of the goods in Suwon District Court 2018Gau2783, Sungnam District Court 2018 for the defendant's plaintiff.

1. On February 14, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for payment of the price for the attempted goods, claiming that the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with meat products, such as mercury, Gaba, and Gaba, from September 15, 2017 to December 20, 2017, by asserting that the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff, who operates the static meat store, with meat products, such as mercury, Gaba, etc., from September 15, 2017.

Accordingly, on March 26, 2018, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 12,642,400 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment.” The said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on April 6, 2018 as is on the 21st day of the same month because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection within 14 days after the Plaintiff was duly served upon the receipt of the senior mother, who is the relative living together with the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s domicile.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, and 3, a significant fact in this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff did not receive livestock products for the above period from the defendant, and the actual person who traded with the defendant is the non-party D, who operated static points at the plaintiff's store C, and since the above D is not an employee of the plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be denied.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that, as Nonparty D’s store was leased and operated, it was traded by issuing a tax invoice, etc. using the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, the actual counterparty should be deemed the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff is liable for the nominal lender’s liability under the Commercial Act.

3. In full view of the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 6-11 and the witness E’s testimony, the Plaintiff is the nominal owner of the C’s business registration certificate, and the Plaintiff leased the fixed land store in C to Nonparty D, and the point at which D is fixed.