1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and engages in wholesale business with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person who engages in wholesale business with the trade name of D.

B. The E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is a corporation that engages in the wholesale business of direct goods, and the Defendant’s misperception F was run by the Defendant, and was engaged in the transaction that was supplied by the Plaintiff from February 2015.

【Fact that there is no dispute between the parties to recognition】

2. Grounds for the plaintiff's assertion

A. D and E, a private company run by the Defendant, are substantially the same enterprises as D and F.

The defendant and F are running the original wholesale business as a partnership business between South and North Korea, and only two business operators are created separately, and only two businesses are operated as if they were separate businesses.

The office and warehouse used by the defendant and F are the same as the office and warehouse, and the telephone and facsimile are the same.

The plaintiff has been engaged in transactions with E operated by F, and the plaintiff tried to discontinue transactions because he could not believe F's credit on March 2016.

If F makes a transaction in D name, it is believed that the Defendant would pay the price, and supplied the original end from March 2016 to November 2017. Since F did not pay KRW 122,014,050 out of the price, it is demanded to pay it.

The parties to the above transaction are the defendant (D), and D and E are the same business entity substantially operated by the defendant and F as the partnership business, and the defendant must pay the unpaid unit price.

B. Preliminaryly, the Defendant is liable in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act as it constitutes a nominal lender.

The Defendant consented to the issuance of the tax invoice under the name of the Defendant (D) with respect to the transaction for which the Plaintiff is seeking payment, and the partial payment was made through the account in the name of the Defendant.

For this reason, the plaintiff made a transaction by misunderstanding the defendant as the business owner.

3. The defendant's assertion.