1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. While the Plaintiff was running wholesale and retail business of synthetic resin, plastic additives, etc. with the trade name of “C”, the Plaintiff supplied D, a company from February 2, 201 to April 201, which was a company such as self-production and sales of synthetic resin, etc. (hereinafter “foreign company”) with goods such as synthetic resin.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on April 23, 2012, the Defendant registered the manufacture and retail business of plastic plastic parts, chairs, etc. with the trade name “E”, and received goods such as synthetic resin from the Plaintiff from around that time to December 2012.

C. On December 1, 2014, the registration of deemed dissolution under Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act was completed with respect to the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant, who is the representative director of the Nonparty Company F and the business registration titleholder of the “E”, is between the Plaintiff’s allegation and the wife. From the time of the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company, the Defendant had been directly involved in the transaction, such as having the signature on the transaction list as a person in charge of accounting affairs. After the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty and the E, F was actually in charge of the transaction.

In addition, the English social "G" of the non-party company's trade name is identical to that of the "E", as well as the location of each of its headquarters and location, and both the place where the plaintiff supplied after and after April 23, 2012 are the same.

In the end, the non-party company and the "E" are merely different from their trade names in substance, and the defendant as the business operator of the "E" is also liable for payment of 5,245,125 won of the goods that the plaintiff had not received from the non-party company at the time of the transaction between the plaintiff and the non-party company, and not so.

Even if F and the defendant are involved in the non-party company, the registration of dissolution.