1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B had his mother as his representative and registered his business under the trade name “D”, and allowed Defendant B to use his account in the settlement of goods prices when operating a restaurant under the above business name.

B. Defendant C was supplied with meat from August 2013 to November 13, 2015 by using the above business operator’s name, and did not pay KRW 23,454,000 for goods.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 1-2 of the court of the first instance, the result of an order to submit taxation information to the Dongsan Tax Offices of the first instance court

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff traded the defendant B as the owner of the business, depending on the business appearance made by the defendant B, and thus, the defendant B is liable to pay the unpaid price of the goods jointly with the defendant C, who is the nominal owner of the transaction.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to jointly pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,454,00 and the amount of delay damages calculated by each of the 15% annual rates prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day of November 14, 2015, which is the day following the date of the final supply of the instant complaint to November 30, 2016, in the case of Defendant C, up to March 30, 2016, in the case of Defendant B, up to 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act until July 14, 2016, and up to the day of full payment.

3. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B merely lent the name of business operator to Defendant C, and the party who traded goods with the Plaintiff is Defendant C, and the Plaintiff was aware of such fact, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the price for the goods.

The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as a business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew or was grossly negligent, the liability shall not be borne.