1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,102,50 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 5, 2016 to July 9, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the wholesale business of fishery products in the trade name of “C”.

B. Around February 1, 2012, D was an individual entrepreneur engaged in the wholesale business, etc. of fishery products, and completed business registration under the name of the Defendant, “E”, and the Defendant permitted D to conduct business by making the said business registration under the name of the Defendant and using it.

C. The Plaintiff supplied fishery products, such as freezing mistakenly, to E from February 4, 2016 (hereinafter “instant goods transaction”), and the price for goods not paid from E as of February 4, 2016 is KRW 44,102,50.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, witness D's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have transacted the goods of this case by misunderstanding the Defendant as the business owner, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 44,102,50 won, and 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act, from February 5, 2016 to July 9, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion has been traded with D from August 2010. The Defendant was notified from D of the fact that “D operates E under the Defendant’s name” around February 2, 2012 at the time of business registration under the Defendant’s name, and the price for goods was paid from D, and the Plaintiff claimed for the first price for the goods. The Plaintiff knew that the Defendant lent the name to D, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for the name lender.

B. The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is the nominal owner.