1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the amount ordered under the following Paragraph 2 shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants registered Defendant C as an entrepreneur and run a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of Defendant B as an actual operator.

B. From August 27, 2016 to September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with the “D (Defendant C)” as the opposite contractual party, and received KRW 55,012,848,00 in total, as the price for the goods, KRW 500,500,000 on September 1, 2016, KRW 800,000 on September 8, 2016, KRW 280,000 on March 13, 2019, KRW 700,000 on May 15, 2019, KRW 2030,000 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap1 through 3, 6 through 8, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants jointly and severally as the actual transaction party or the nominal lender (=5,012,848 won - 20,300,000 won) did not raise an objection as to the Defendants’ satisfaction of payment of part of the principal amount of the goods unpaid, while the lawsuit is pending in this court.

In addition, according to the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendants are liable to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from August 8, 2018, which is the day following the final service of the part concerning the purport of the claim and the grounds for the amendment thereof, which is the date of the final service of the written application for the amendment thereof, until July 11, 2019, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, and from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that (1) Defendant C only lent only the name of the husband to Defendant B, but did not have any part in the business, and the Plaintiff was aware that Defendant B was a real business owner, and thus, he was not liable.

In this regard, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is traded by mistake of the nominal owner as the business owner.