1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the wholesale business of fishery products under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who completed business registration under the trade name of “E” of Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “E”) on November 11, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff is a restaurant operated by the Defendant in the same place as before the Defendant completed the business registration of the instant restaurant, including F, etc., which had been operated by the Defendant in the same place as the instant restaurant prior to the completion of the business registration.

The fishery products were supplied to the Company, and the amount of KRW 16,953,710 as of November 10, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “existing outstanding amount”) was not paid.

After the business registration under the name of the Defendant was completed, the Plaintiff supplied fishery products, such as active fish, to the restaurant of this case from November 12, 2016 to January 14, 2017, and did not receive the total of KRW 17,925,450, including the existing outstanding amounts.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 6

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff succeeded to the existing outstanding amounts while acquiring the business of the instant restaurant from G, or agreed to pay the outstanding amounts to G to the Plaintiff while operating the instant restaurant jointly with G, and fishery products, etc. were supplied by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of goods, including the existing outstanding amounts, of G.

Even if it is not so, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the price of goods, including the amount receivable, as the nominal lender who lends the name of business registration to G.

B. The parties that entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant are G.

The defendant was merely temporarily lent the name of business registration to G, and it did not take over the business of the restaurant in this case or take over the existing amount, and the plaintiff was also aware of the name of the above name.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s determination on the acquisition of the business or the acquisition of the outstanding amount is based on G when the Defendant acquired the business of the instant restaurant from G.