1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in meat distribution business in the name of "C", and the defendant is a person who operates D (hereinafter referred to as "the Mart") of this case.

B. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E with respect to the refined coper in the instant marina (hereinafter “the instant refined coper”) on a deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 1 million per month, and the period until January 20, 2018 (the lessee’s name was F) (the lessee’s name was F), and the goods sold in the said refined Coper were calculated along with the calculation unit of the instant marina, and the Defendant paid E the remainder after deducting the rent from the said lease agreement.

The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff as the recipient of the instant land supply with the total amount of KRW 20,680,720 from January 31, 2016 to May 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff’s remaining amount of KRW 8,00,000 out of the above goods is KRW 12,680,720.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff, as a party to a land supply contract, is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 12,680,720 for the goods and delay damages to the Plaintiff, as a party to the land supply contract, as the Plaintiff, as a party to the claim, on the grounds that the Plaintiff, as a party to the land supply contract, supplied the land to the Defendant, as a party to the claim as to each of the entries in Gap’s 1 through 5, Eul’s 1 through 4 (including the number of branches;

Even if the Defendant is not a person to whom the Plaintiff was supplied, the Defendant is liable for the nominal lender of his own trade name to E, and the Defendant is an employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act as the employer of E in relation to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

The judgment of the parties to the contract as to the assertion of the parties to the contract is examined, and the fact that the plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the party who supplied the land to the party to the land of this case is as the defendant.

However, the defendant is part of the Mart in this case to E.