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. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied steel materials to the Defendant on or around November 2015 according to the goods supply contract with the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid price of KRW 19,411,712 and damages for delay.

Even if the Defendant is not a party to the above contract for the supply of goods, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice under the name of the Defendant at the time of the supply of goods, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above payment and the damages for delay, depending on the liability of the nominal lender under

B. The parties that entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant are not the Defendant but B.

In addition, the plaintiff knew or could have known that B was issued a tax invoice by lending the name of the defendant, so the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 under a contract for the supply of goods, the Plaintiff’s supply of steel materials equivalent to KRW 29,411,712 to the Defendant (mutual name) around November 19, 2015 and around November 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant commodity contract”), and the Plaintiff’s receipt of a tax invoice from the Defendant on December 31, 2015, respectively.

However, according to the respective statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of Eul’s witness witness D’s testimony and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that Eul ordered a permanent E/F construction at permanent residence, and that Eul issued a tax invoice under the name of the defendant to the plaintiff since there was no business operator even though he was supplied with steel materials in the above construction site from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000, out of the price of the goods from Eul as the wife on June 20, 2016.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the party to the goods contract of this case is not the defendant but B.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(b) responsibility of the nominal lender;