1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the liquor sales business, and the Defendant is a “B” with the trade name of “B” (hereinafter “instant dan”).

A) The Plaintiff is a person operating a business. From February 2, 2012 to July 2013, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the Defendant’s place of business operated by the Defendant, and the goods price was agreed to be paid from time to time by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid alcoholic beverage price of KRW 5,426,90, and damages for delay thereof. (2) The Plaintiff believed that the Defendant was the opposite contractual party at the time of the supply of alcoholic beverages to the instant dan, and the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant dan was sub-leaseed to C, and thus, the Defendant is liable to the nominal lender pursuant to

B. The Defendant did not have transacted with the Defendant, and the Defendant subleted the instant dan to C around February 2012, and made a transaction with C using its business registration from around September 2012.

In addition, the plaintiff knew that C had lent the plaintiff's name to operate the business, so the defendant is not liable for the name lender.

2. Determination

A. The facts that the instant dan is registered as a business operator under the name of the defendant as to the claim for the price of goods are not disputed between the parties.

However, in light of the fact that the witness D in the first instance trial worked as a person in charge of the Plaintiff at the time of supplying alcoholic beverages to the instant dan, and testified to the effect that he traded with C about the supply of alcoholic beverages to the instant dan, and that he was aware of the Defendant during his transaction, the Plaintiff entered into a liquor supply contract with the Defendant solely on the respective descriptions of the evidence A Nos. 1 through 4.

or the defendant's supply of alcoholic beverages to the defendant is not sufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

(b).