1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells agricultural hot water and secondary eggs, and the Defendant is a person who runs a wholesale business of agricultural materials from August 3, 2012 to April 4, 2016 under the trade name “C”.

D is the Defendant’s husband, who is engaged in the wholesale business of agricultural materials and components from March 17, 2006 to April 30, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s goods transaction Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with D and supplied goods circulation, etc., and the Defendant supplied goods, such as publication, to the Defendant instead of D after the Defendant opened the business.

On December 29, 2015, when the Plaintiff completed the transaction with the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant on December 29, 2015, and indicated the trade name “C”, “C”, “D”, “158,390,119 won”, “1,536,700 won”, and “a total balance of KRW 159,926,819”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded a contract on the supply of goods with the Plaintiff and provided goods from the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 159,926,819 for the goods price and the delay damages therefor. 2) Even if the Defendant only lent the Plaintiff’s business name to D, the Defendant, who run the business, granted the Plaintiff the right to representation for the commercial activities to D as his husband, and D received the transaction statement stating the balance and the total balance from the Plaintiff in the transaction with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, in accordance with Article 48 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant’s agent’s legal act as seen above has effect on the Defendant

B. The Defendant asserted that D had a name lent to D from August 3, 2012 to April 4, 2016, and traded with D, its husband, under the name of the Defendant. The Defendant was generated during the said period.