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 person who engages in the wholesale business of Cheongbu Products with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of Cheongbu Products with the trade name of “D,” and E is a person who actually operates D with the Defendant’s spouse.

B. From September 2017 to December 9, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied Cheongbu Products equivalent to KRW 40,843,400 (hereinafter “instant Cheongbu Products”) and received KRW 19,400,000 out of the price, and did not receive KRW 21,443,400.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff supplied the instant Cheongbu to the defendant. Since the plaintiff did not receive 21,443,400 won out of the price of the goods, the plaintiff claims for the amount of the unpaid goods and damages for delay. The F dealt with the defendant's business at the defendant's office, the defendant's trade name "D" has been on board a printed vehicle, and the plaintiff thought that F was an employee or partner of the defendant's business registration certificate for the issuance of the tax invoice. Therefore, the defendant should be held liable for lending the name to F. 2) The other party who transacted with the defendant's argument, and the defendant did not receive the instant Cheongbu from the plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s trade name, etc., “D” as the Defendant’s trade name, etc., F was engaged in an independent business and distribution business. In light of various circumstances, such as preparing a loan certificate with F on the price of the goods unpaid from the instant task, the Plaintiff is deemed to have known that the price of the goods unpaid from the instant task was F, and thus, the Plaintiff did not mislead the Defendant as the owner of the business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion of liability for the name lending of the Plaintiff is without merit.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment.