1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. From August 2015 to September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied kitchen supplies to a person who operated a restaurant in the name of “E” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); and (b) did not receive KRW 13,583,000 out of the price, from August 1, 2015 to September 1, 2015.

B. On September 3, 2015, C completed business registration under the trade name “E”, and closed business on November 26, 2015.

The Defendant was in a marital relationship with C from October 27, 2014 to June 16, 2016, and was the owner of the building in which the instant restaurant is located, and drafted a free-use contract for C to allow C to use his/her building free of charge on August 21, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is a substantial operator of the restaurant of this case and a person who was supplied with kitchen supplies from the plaintiff, and that he is jointly and severally liable with C who lent the business name to the plaintiff to pay the remainder of the kitchen supplies.

The defendant asserts that C is a substantial operator of the restaurant of this case and he only supported C with some facility costs.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant, as an operating entity in charge of operating and managing the instant restaurant in order to operate the restaurant, is deemed to have received the main supplies for opening the instant restaurant from the Plaintiff, as an operating entity that actually disbursed the expenses and received the delivery of the main supplies for opening the instant restaurant.

1. C argues that the Defendant only lent his name in business registration in order to obtain the business loan under one’s name due to a large relationship of lending.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 10, and 11, the defendant is the debtor with respect to the building, etc. owned by the defendant at the time of opening the restaurant of this case.