1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the Plaintiff’s food distribution and manufacturing business. The Plaintiff supplied food materials to Defendant C, each of the following dates: (a) the Plaintiff supplied each of the goods indicated in the claim to the Plaintiff by January 6, 2018; (b) even if the Defendants did not engage in the Plaintiff’s goods transaction with the Plaintiff, the Defendants had H et al. lent their names to operate the restaurant of this case, and the Plaintiff traded food materials by misleading the Defendants as business owners; and (c) the Defendants were responsible for paying each of the goods indicated in the claim to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The Defendants did not operate each of the instant restaurants or engage in any transaction with the Plaintiff.

Defendant B, who was his spouse, allowed H to use the name of “F” restaurant, and Defendant C (Defendant B’s father) merely accepted the request from Defendant C (Defendant B’s husband) for the use of the name of the tenant of the “F f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f.

The Plaintiff, while supplying food materials to each restaurant of this case, could easily be aware of the fact that the Defendants were not actually business owners, or paid attention to the amount of money. As such, the Defendants are not liable for the name-holder.

There is no evidence to see that there exists the unpaid amount of goods claimed by the Plaintiff, and the amount of goods for each restaurant of this case was fully repaid.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the Defendants actually traded with the Plaintiff while operating each of the instant restaurants, as well as Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 1-2.