1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2012, the Defendant conducted pharmaceutical affairs after completing business registration with the trade name of “C pharmacy” from “C pharmacy” in the Jung-gu Government City B.

B. The Plaintiff, a medicine selling company, supplied the medicine to the above pharmacy from April 2013 to March 2014, and the amount of goods unpaid is KRW 43,447,940.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, a pharmacist, is obligated to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the actual operator of the above pharmacy is E and the defendant lent the above pharmacy operator's name to E, and that since the plaintiff was aware of such fact, the above pharmacy's obligation to pay medicines supplied to the above pharmacy should be borne by E, not the defendant.

In this regard, it is reasonable to deem that the above pharmacy operator is a pharmacist, and the party to the contract for the supply of medicines to the above pharmacy is the defendant in the transaction agreement (No. 2). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was the defendant in the supply of medicines to the above pharmacy, and there is no evidence to deem that the other party to the transaction was E.

C. The defendant, in collusion with E, an actual operator of the above pharmacy, and D, an employee of the plaintiff, had the defendant bear an excessive obligation for the price of goods by manipulating documents as if the plaintiff supplied the above drug to the above pharmacy. The defendant's claim for damages against the plaintiff was asserted to offset the damage claim against the above price of goods within an amount equal to the above price of goods. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, the defendant is at the rate of 43,447,940 won for the above goods and 20% per annum from May 17, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.