1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff is a company engaged in trade business such as firesaw and wholesale business. Defendant E is a trade name, “G,” and Defendant F was engaged in sales of firesaw in the trade name, “I,” and was supplied by the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff from around July 5, 2013 to the same year.

8. Until December 28, 2000, Defendant E sold a total of KRW 78,627,972 to Defendant E.

3) The Plaintiff sold 143,198,05 won in total to Defendant F for three occasions on June 1, 2013, and the total amount of 43,80,000 won paid from Defendant F during the period from July 1, 2013 to July 25, 2013 is KRW 9,39,398,055. 【The ground for recognition’ is that there is no dispute, and there is no ground for recognition, Gap’s 4,5,13, Eul’s 1,2, and 5 evidence (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as a whole.

B. According to the above findings of determination, barring any special circumstance, Defendant E is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 6,633,738, which is the remainder of KRW 6,738 (=6,500,738, Oct. 23, 2013) less the remainder of KRW 71,994,234 (=78,627,972 – KRW 6,633,738), ② Defendant F is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2,140,00,00 for the return of goods from KRW 99,398,05,05, less the remainder of KRW 2,140,00 for the Plaintiff’s return of goods from KRW 78,627,972; KRW 6,63,738); ② Defendant F is the person who was paid damages for delay from KRW 99,398,05,00 for the Plaintiff’s return of goods from August 16, 2016, 2013.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. As to Defendant F’s assertion of the name lending, Defendant F argues that Defendant F merely lent Defendant E the name of “I” to a third party, and that there was no transaction or operation with the Plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by Defendant F alone is insufficient to recognize the above fact of name lending, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if Defendant F is considered as the nominal name holder, in order for Defendant F to be exempted from liability, the other party to the transaction is the nominal name.