1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a person who sells fishery products, etc. in the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person who has registered his/her business with the trade name of "E" with his/her place of business located in "S

F is a person who, from July 2012 to December 31, 2016, paid a monthly amount of KRW 2 million to the Defendant and conducts business using E’s trade name.

The plaintiff supplied frozen fishery products to E and issued electronic invoices in the future. As of the end of December 2016, the plaintiff was not paid an amount equivalent to KRW 18,390,200.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings and written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 and 6 of Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul’s No. 5 and 6 (including Serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) are parties to a contract for the supply of fishery products with the Plaintiff, or the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid price of KRW 18,390,200 and the delay damages.

Judgment

According to the facts of recognition as to the parties to the instant fishery product supply contract, the Defendant received KRW 2 million per month from F, and did not participate in the management of “E”, and did not directly conclude a fishery product supply contract with the Plaintiff.

In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was the party who entered into a fishery products supply contract with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should pay the unpaid amount as a contracting party is without merit.

A person who permits the business registration under his/her name and the business registration under his/her own name to determine the liability of the nominal lender under the defendant's commercial law is liable for the nominal lender even though he/she

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da19536 delivered on September 6, 1996). In addition to the aforementioned evidence, and the testimony of the witness F of the first instance and the first instance trial, the Defendant’s name E in its own name.