1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is the land transaction partner was supplied to the Defendant with an amount equivalent to KRW 49,119,305,00 from December 10, 2013 to January 15, 2015.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant is liable for the nominal lender’s liability is the Defendant’s trade name “C”, and the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff misleads the Defendant as the business owner, supplied B with the amount equivalent to KRW 49,119,305 of the meat product from December 10, 2013 to January 15, 2015.

The defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff for the price of the goods under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the assertion that the Plaintiff is the Defendant is the Defendant solely on the basis of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the assertion that the Plaintiff is the land transaction partner. It is insufficient to recognize that the other party who supplied the Plaintiff’s goods equivalent to KRW 49,119,305 from around December 10, 2013 to January 15,

Rather, even if based on the Plaintiff’s own statement, the other party who supplied the meat products as above is B.

Plaintiff

The argument is without merit.

B. The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment on the assertion of the nominal lender’s liability is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant permitted B to use the Defendant’s trade name “C” as the Defendant’s trade name, and instead, according to the written evidence Nos. 2 and 6, B continues to engage in the land breeding business with the trade name “D” regardless of whether before or after December 10, 2013.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1, the plaintiff can be recognized that even before December 10, 2013, the plaintiff continued to engage in the field B and the field transaction. Thus, the plaintiff did not mislead the defendant as the business owner.

Plaintiff

The argument is without merit without need for further review.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit.