1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 310,266,789 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 31, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the business owner of "D" located in the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan Building 402, and E is the defendant's punishment.

B. The Plaintiff engaged in the fishery products distribution business with the trade name called “G” from Seo-gu, Busan. From around 2004, the Plaintiff traded to supply the fishery products to the above D.

C. As of July 7, 2015, an outstanding amount that the Plaintiff had not received from D reaches KRW 310,266,789 (hereinafter “instant commodity price”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 2 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant is a party to whom the goods of this case were supplied by the plaintiff while directly operating D, and thus is obligated to pay the price of the goods of this case to the plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, even if the defendant lent his name to E, the plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of the goods of this case with E by misunderstanding the defendant as the party to the transaction, so the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the goods of this case to the plaintiff as the nominal lender under Article 24

B. The defendant's assertion D practically operated E, and the defendant only allowed the registration of business and goods transaction for the convenience of the business of E, a bad credit holder, to be made in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to seek the payment of the price of the instant goods to the Defendant since the Plaintiff is the actual party E to the instant goods supply contract concluded with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff also knew of such fact.

3. Determination

A. As to the primary argument, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the witness E’s testimony and the entire purport of the pleading, namely, ① the Defendant is living in Seoul and operating a restaurant separately, and ② the Plaintiff is supplied with goods under the name of the Defendant.