1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff supplied steel materials equivalent to 33,468,380 won at the site of the construction site of the sn beam snife Doncheon-si from October 1, 2016 to January 16, 2017. The plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 33,468,380 on October 28, 2016 to the defendant (the company name operated by the defendant is "E"), and the plaintiff received KRW 12,00,000 out of the above price under the defendant's name around December 3, 2016.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a steel materials supply contract with the Defendant and supplied the Defendant with steel materials worth KRW 33,468,380.

The plaintiff paid only 12,00,000 won out of the above goods and did not receive the remainder of 21,468,380 won. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the price to the plaintiff.

B. Even if the Defendant lent the name to C, the Plaintiff entered into a contract by misunderstanding the Defendant as a party to the contract, and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the price of goods pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

3. Only the facts acknowledged prior to the determination and the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul evidence No. 1 are insufficient to recognize that a steel materials supply contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff entered into a steel materials supply contract by misunderstanding the defendant as a party to the contract.

Rather, in each statement of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account some of the Plaintiff’s party testimony and the entire purport of the testimony and arguments as a result of the Plaintiff’s party examination, namely, the Plaintiff concluded a material supply contract by negotiating with C. However, upon request of C, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to a person who is not a party C, who was supplied with the Defendant, and during that process, the name of the Defendant was used, and