1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who manufactures parts with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person who has completed business registration with the trade name of "D".

B. On January 21, 2017, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice (i.e., value 9,480,000 for supply value of 9,480,000; (ii) issued an electronic tax invoice (i.e., value 11,640,000 for supply value on February 9, 2017; and (iii) issued an electronic tax invoice (i.e., value 1,680,000 for supply value) on May 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff supplied the cosmetic goods, etc. (hereinafter "the goods of this case") and was not paid KRW 13,448,820 out of the price of the above goods by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 13,448,820 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay.

Even if the defendant merely lent the business registration name to E, as long as the defendant permits another person to use the trade name of the business registration under his/her own name, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is recognized. Therefore, the above goods price and damages for delay are liable to pay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the “D” that is registered as a business operator in the future of the Defendant is a business entity substantially operated by E and the parties that entered into a contract for goods supply with the Plaintiff

Since the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with E orally and supplied goods to E, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant is a party to a goods supply contract, the fact that the Defendant completed business registration under D’s trade name, and that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff as the Defendant is as seen earlier.

However, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 8, 9, 10, 19 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) and each other.