1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a limited company established for the purpose of alcoholic beverage sales business, etc., and the Defendant is the business owner of a restaurant with the trade name of “C” opened on March 9, 2009.

B. From March 31, 2007 to March 8, 2009, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to a mutually named restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). From March 9, 2009 to June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to a mutually named restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

C. The amount of alcoholic beverages unpaid at the time of June 18, 2015, which the Plaintiff ceased to supply alcoholic beverages, was KRW 19,489,730 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Before March 8, 2009, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the “D”, a business operator’s name, from March 31, 2007 to March 8, 2009. At that time, the said restaurant was actually operated by the F Husband and wife. However, on March 9, 2009, the Defendant was obligated to pay the amount of alcoholic beverages paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, since the Plaintiff opened the restaurant at issue and took over the business of the said “D” while operating the restaurant at issue, and belongs to its trade name, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of alcoholic beverages paid by the Plaintiff from March 9, 2009 to the Defendant as the business operator of the instant restaurant at issue.

② A person who actually operates the instant restaurant is F, and even if the Defendant is a nominal lender who only lends his name, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of alcoholic beverages supplied to the instant restaurant pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. As to the alcoholic beverage transaction portion from March 31, 2007 to March 8, 2009, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to a mutually owned restaurant by the business operator E. However, the actual operator was F.