1. Defendants B and D shall jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,262,64 and the interest rate thereon from January 27, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B and D

A. The fact that Defendant B, on August 10, 2009, completed the registration of the business of the food plastic business on the trade name “E” and operated the food materials sales business in the name of Defendant D, his/her dependent, and the Plaintiff, while engaging in the business of selling food materials in the name of “F” from January 2014 to June 26, 2014, supplied the food materials equivalent to KRW 101,126,544 to the aforesaid plastic restaurant, and the fact that he/she was not paid the food materials amounting to KRW 90,262,644 among which he/she did not dispute between the parties, or that the fact that he/she did not receive the food materials amounting to KRW 90,262,644, among which he/she was paid the food materials amounting to KRW 1,2, A2, and subparagraph 3, may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

According to the above facts, Defendant B and D are the parties to whom the above food materials were supplied by the Plaintiff as a manager of the relevant plastic business, or at least Defendant B is the nominal lender, and Defendant D is the actual business owner, and Defendant D is the Plaintiff as the actual business owner, and as the supply date of the above food materials, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 27, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the next day after the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the said Defendants, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B merely lent only the name in the name of the business registration of “E” to Defendant D, and the actual business owner of the said “E” is Defendant D, and the Plaintiff supplied food materials to Defendant D. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request.

However, even if Defendant B, as alleged by Defendant B, lent the name to Defendant D, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect the third party who trades by mistake of the nominal holder as the business owner. Therefore, the other party to the transaction knew or knew of the name lending.