1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,632,550 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from April 1, 2014 to March 19, 2016.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts were a company with the purpose of generating and processing Aluminium pressure from December 2, 2012 to February 2014, and supplied 135,392,167 won to “B”, but only received 64,759,617 won from “B” and did not receive 70,632,550 won (=135,392,167 won - 64,759,617 won).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract” between the Plaintiff and “B”). 【The fact that there is no dispute with the grounds for recognition, the entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The party to the instant contract is the Defendant.

Even if the defendant is not the party to the contract of this case, the defendant should be held liable as the nominal lender because he allowed his father to use his name to run his business.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the amount of accrued aluminium pressure refluent materials and damages for delay.

B. The parties to the instant contract are C, the father of the Defendant.

In addition, since the plaintiff knew of the fact that the defendant knew of the fact of lending the name to C or was grossly negligent, the defendant is not liable for the nominal lender to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with.

3. Determination

A. The identity of the party to the relevant legal doctrine is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. If the two parties agree with each other in relation to the determination of the parties, the parties to the contract must be determined according to the agreed intent, and if the parties fail to agree with each other, a reasonable person should be determined based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract.