1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 2010, the Plaintiff is a medical doctor who opened a mutual hospital called “E Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) in its name, and the Defendant is a company that runs the business of selling medical supplies.

B. From the beginning of the Plaintiff’s opening of the instant hospital to F and Dong businesses, the Plaintiff suspended the operation of the instant hospital on May 2, 2010, and withdrawn from the Dong company around August 2010 during the period of suspension.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for payment of the sum of KRW 19,172,00,00, which was supplied by the Defendant to the instant hospital from March 27, 2010 to May 13, 2010, as the Suwon District Court Decision 2010Da6818, Suwon-si, the Suwon District Court, which was 201.

On August 9, 2010, the decision of performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff, and on August 24, 2010, the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on August 24, 2010 because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection within two weeks therefrom.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff did not enter into a contract for the supply of medical supplies with the Defendant, and even if the Defendant supplied medical supplies equivalent to the sum of KRW 19,172,000 to the instant hospital, this is merely a transaction with F, an unauthorized agent, and thus, the Plaintiff did not bear an obligation to pay for the goods.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the hospital of this case supplied medical supplies with the consent of the plaintiff, and even if it is not recognized that the contract for the supply of medical supplies was entered into with the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be exempted from liability due to the trade of F.

B. If the obligation of a cooperative, which is a single business entity, is to be borne by the act that has been engaged in commercial activities for all the union members, the joint liability shall be determined by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act to the union members with respect to such obligation.