1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,356,358 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 27, 2017 to June 8, 2018.

1. The Plaintiff, in addition to the claim for the purchase of goods, also claims against the Defendant and claims for return of unjust enrichment based on the name lender’s liability under the Commercial Act. However, as long as accepting the claim for the purchase of goods as seen later, the Plaintiff does not determine each of the above conjunctive claims

Determination on the Grounds for Appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a “D” restaurant operated under the name of the Defendant and C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

(1) Upon receipt of a request for delivery of kitchen supplies, etc. to the above restaurant, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the goods to the above restaurant. On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant and supplied the goods of KRW 59,332,00 (excluding value-added tax) in total to the instant restaurant on April 26, 2017. The Defendant and C paid the remainder of KRW 49,332,00 within one month after delivery, but the Defendant and C did not pay the remainder to the Plaintiff by May 26, 2017. After that, the Plaintiff and C paid the remainder to the Plaintiff by KRW 657,460, KRW 818, KRW 182, KRW 182, KRW 180, KRW 305, KRW 3050, KRW 3050, KRW 3050, KRW 4050, KRW 20585, KRW 2017.

The Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with C around March 2017, but did not enter into the said contract with the Defendant.

B. The following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 9 (including each number), namely, ① the restaurant of this case was registered under the name of the defendant on March 14, 2017, and entered into a lease agreement on the restaurant of this case under the name of the defendant, and ② the defendant and C are de facto marital relations.