1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. By April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total amount of KRW 19,410,990,000 to the Plaintiff, but did not receive the price of the goods from the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the price of the goods 19,410,990 won and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff was well aware of the circumstance that the Plaintiff supplied the pets to the Defendant who borrowed the Defendant’s name to C, and that the Defendant is a nominal lender.

Therefore, the defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the price of goods to the plaintiff or assume the responsibility of the nominal lender.

2. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the transaction partner who supplied the complete items is C. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking payment of the price of goods is without merit on the premise that the Defendant is the transaction partner.

Meanwhile, Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that "a person who has permitted another person to engage in business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to a third person who trades his/her own name or trade name with him/her as the owner of the business." However, the liability of a nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third person who trades with the nominal owner by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of the nominal name or was gross negligence on the part of the other party, he/she shall not be liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in this case, health stand and the content of subparagraph 1 (Certificate), “The Plaintiff supplied goods to the other party, but the Defendant was merely the nominal owner at the time of delivery, and the actual business owner was well aware that the Defendant had not been a representative with the Defendant on the business registration certificate.”