1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is registered as an entrepreneur of the entertainment tavern (hereinafter “E”) with the trade name “E” from October 1, 2007 to Gangnam-gu Seoul and D branch.

B. The Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the said “E” entertainment tavern from October 2007 to August 6, 2014, and the outstanding amount for sales proceeds is KRW 73,567,200.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Defendant registered as a business proprietor and operated jointly with F and the instant entertainment tavern, it is obligated to pay the sales proceeds to the Defendant.

B. The defendant is a person who lends only the name of the business operator to F on the ground of his credit and debt relationship with the defendant F, and the plaintiff is well aware of this and transacted with F. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay the sales proceeds of alcoholic beverages.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant is liable as a joint operator of a transactional party or an entertainment tavern, or not (1) comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 3 and 4, and witness F's testimony, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.

(A) From around 1997, F had a relation of being supplied alcoholic beverages by the Plaintiff for about 20 years while running an entertainment tavern in Gangnam-gu Seoul and D.

(B) In the meantime, F had registered its business under the name of his spouse, etc. and operated an entertainment drinking house. Around September 2007, F had already been liable for KRW 300 million against the Plaintiff at the time of closing the business registered under his/her spouse’s name on the grounds of default of bills, etc.

(C) When a bill discounted by the Defendant was returned to the Defendant and the Defendant owed a large amount of debt, F is registered in the name of the Defendant on October 1, 2007 as the Defendant demanded, and the building lease agreement was also prepared by the Defendant as the lessee, and is also in the name of “E” under the same business with G.