1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,689,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 4, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company operating alcoholic beverage sales business, etc., and the Defendant is the business owner of the “C points” (hereinafter “C points”) with the place of business located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

B. The Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages from October 20, 2014 to April 1, 2016 at the instant place of business, and the amount of alcoholic beverages received from November 28, 2014 to September 13, 2015 but still has not been paid is KRW 40,689,00.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant alcoholic beverage price”). 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry of Gap 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Both parties’ assertion asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the aforementioned accounts payable and the damages for delay, as the Plaintiff believed the business registration under the name of the Defendant and supplied alcoholic beverages to the instant business establishment.

In this regard, the defendant did not conclude a contract for the supply of alcoholic beverages with the plaintiff, and the person who operates the place of business of this case is D, and the defendant did not conclude the operation entrustment contract with D Co., Ltd.

B. (1) Determination (1) The defendant's duty to pay the liquor price in this case, and the person who has allowed another person to run a business using his name or trade name is jointly and severally liable with the third person who has transacted his trade as a business owner (Article 24 of the Commercial Act). The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect the third person who has transacted as a trade name by misunderstanding the nominal lender as a business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of the nominal lender or was grossly negligent in making the nominal lender known of the nominal lender, it is reasonable to view that the nominal lender bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in making the nominal lender

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 13 April 13, 2001