1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is food miscellaneous chain business and distribution business. From August 1, 2013 to August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied food miscellaneous goods equivalent to KRW 1,310,350 to a restaurant of “C” located in Gunsan City B (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), on six occasions from August 1, 2013, but was returned of food miscellaneous goods equivalent to KRW 213,850 among them, and was not paid the remainder of KRW 1,096,50.

B. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of the instant restaurant on May 10, 2012 by designating D and the Defendant as joint business operators, and the date of opening the business as May 10, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant was the representative of the instant restaurant on the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate and supplied the goods. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,096,500 for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff as a party to the goods sales contract. Even if the Defendant was a representative who lent only the name to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable for the nominal name pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act. 2) At the time when the Defendant Plaintiff supplied the goods to the instant restaurant, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments as a whole prior to the conclusion of the contract for the sale of goods, namely, the Defendant: (a) completed the business registration as a joint proprietor of the instant restaurant on May 3, 2012; (b) the business registration of the instant restaurant only changed between the Defendant and the Defendant on May 3, 2012; and (c) the Defendant continued to maintain the status of joint proprietor of the instant restaurant on July 1, 2014; and (c) the Defendant stated in the subsequent appeal brief that “E is running on the condition of the sale of the instant restaurant as at the time”.