1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “C”, supplied as a person who runs the wholesale business of frozen fishery products, and from March 200, D supplied as a restaurant operated by Geumcheon-gu Seoul E and 101 (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. Around September 26, 2014, the name of the proprietor of the instant restaurant was changed to the Defendant, who is the Dong Office D, but D continued to operate the restaurant even thereafter.

C. The Plaintiff became aware of the change of name at the time of the change in the name of the Defendant, but the Plaintiff continued to operate D, without any special objection, received payment for the continuous supply of goods, and there was no lack of contact with the Defendant while supplying goods to the instant restaurant.

The instant restaurant was closed on July 20, 2015, and the price for which the Plaintiff failed to supply goods to the instant restaurant was KRW 30,045,100 as of July 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, whole purport of pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 30,045,100 won to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that since the defendant only lent the name of the business operator to D and did not operate the restaurant of this case, and since the price of the goods after the change in the name of the business operator was fully paid after the change in the name of the defendant, the defendant does not

B. According to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, a person who permits another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name is jointly and severally liable with another person to pay the third person who trades his/her own name or trade name as the owner of the business, and according to the facts recognized earlier, the defendant is recognized to have permitted D to run a business using his/her name

However, not the defendant, D was in a goods transaction relationship with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is in the name of the business operator of the restaurant of this case.