1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,562,360 and its amount.

1. Basic facts - The Plaintiff supplied 2,562,360 won goods to the “E” located in Daegu Northern-gu from April 2015 to June 2015, as a person who runs wholesale and retail business, such as canned foods, etc.

- E is registered as a business operator in the name of the defendant B.

Defendant C is the husband of Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion - Defendants operated E as a partnership business.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount of 2,562,360 won (and damages for delay) to the plaintiff.

- even if the Defendants are not the actual operators of E, they shall be held liable as the nominal operator.

B. The Defendants’ assertion - The actual operator of E is F, the birth of Defendant C.

The plaintiff supplied F with the above goods.

- The plaintiff was aware that the actual operator of E was F or was unaware of his gross negligence, so the defendants are not liable for the nominal lender.

c.(1) Determination is presumed to be the actual business owner of E, who is the business owner of E;

Only on the basis of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, it is insufficient to reverse the above presumption and to recognize the fact that F is the actual operator of E.

Therefore, Defendant B is responsible for the payment of the price for the above goods to the Plaintiff.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant C operated with Defendant B by only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Defendant C is not liable.

(2) Even if F was an actual operator of E, Defendant B, the nominal owner of the business registration, is liable to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

As to this, Defendant B was aware that the actual operator of E was F or was unaware of it due to gross negligence, Defendant B was not liable for the nominal lender.