1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the wholesale, retail, processing and distribution business of livestock products in the 52-ro 52 of the total reduction of and exemption from the quantity in the eternic City

나. 원고는 2013. 12. 18.부터 2014. 4. 21.까지 피고 명의의 사업자등록이 되어 있는 ‘B정육점’(이하 ‘이 사건 정육점’이라 한다)에 웰팜포크 돈육 삼겹 등 47,045,795원 상당의 축산물을 공급하였고, 위 물품대금 중 36,298,559원을 지급받았다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3-1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The summary of the argument 1) The defendant is not only the nominal owner of the business registration of the instant temporary landing point, but also the plaintiff was supplied with livestock products from the plaintiff while actually operating the instant temporary landing point by lending the operating fund of the instant temporary landing point to C, and then acquiring operating profit of the instant temporary landing point. Even if the defendant merely lent the name of the business owner to C, the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the name was given, so the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 10,747,236 (=45,795 - 36,298,59) and the delay damages therefrom. 2) The defendant did not have concluded a contract on the supply of goods with the plaintiff for the instant temporary landing point.

The actual operator of the static Point in this case was C, and the defendant was not operated jointly with C, and only lent only the name of the business operator to C, and the plaintiff was well aware of the fact of the name lending.

Therefore, the defendant is not liable to the nominal lender for the unpaid obligation for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the fixed land store of this case.

B. Determination 1: (a) whether the Defendant was supplied with the goods from the Plaintiff as an actual operator of the refined land store in this case; and (b) whether the Defendant was the Defendant.