1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

In fact, on November 24, 201, the Plaintiff registered the business with the trade name called “D” (hereinafter “instant main points”) as the wife of C, and registered the business of providing entertainment services as its main business.

The Defendant is a company that aims at alcoholic beverage sales business, etc., and supplied alcoholic beverages to the main points of this case from November 201 to March 26, 2014, and the Defendant’s actual operator at that time was G.

On April 15, 2014, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff continued to be supplied with alcoholic beverages from the Defendant by March 26, 2014, and the amount of said payment remains 35,926,900 won (hereinafter “the instant alcoholic beverage”).”

On April 22, 2014, the above court issued a payment order stating that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 35,926,900 won with 5% per annum from March 27, 2014 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and that "the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 35,926,900 won with 20% per annum from the next day until the full payment is made" (hereinafter "the instant payment order").

On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff did not file an objection within two weeks from the date of receiving the instant payment order, and the instant payment order became final and conclusive on May 10, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff did not have any relation to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was unable to receive the payment order of this case, on the grounds that C was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was operating the main point of this case, as the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff was operating the main point of this case and registered its business.

The defendant was aware that C was actually operating the main points of this case, and the plaintiff was aware that C was not a party to a liquor supply contract, and thus, the plaintiff is not liable as the nominal lender.

Therefore, the plaintiff is against the defendant.