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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs steel products wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “C” and the Defendant is a person who manufactures steel facilities and industrial machinery with the trade name of “D.”

B. Around April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to supply E and steel products, and supplied E with 32,230,638 won of H-BAM steel products at the camping site of G Co., Ltd. located in Kimhae-si F.

C. Meanwhile, on May 4, 2016, in the Changwon District Court Decision 2016Ra306 Fraudulent case, E was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime that “E did not have any intent or ability to pay the price of the goods, and received steel as stated in the foregoing paragraph (b).”

Accordingly, E appealed as the Changwon District Court 2016No1054, but was sentenced to imprisonment with labor on November 16, 2016, and was sentenced to one year and six months. In other words, E filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 2016Do20387, Jan. 20, 2017, but the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 1 and 2, each fact which is obvious to this court

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply steel products. Around April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied H-BAM steel products equivalent to KRW 32,230,638, and around April 7, 2015, the Defendant must pay to the Plaintiff the price of the said goods, KRW 32,230,638, and delay damages therefor. (2) Even if the Plaintiff supplied steel products to E other than the Defendant, E requested the Plaintiff to supply steel products by borrowing the above business name from the Defendant, and the Defendant is liable for the name lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, and ② in relation to external relations with the Plaintiff to use its own name, there is no difference between the Plaintiff’s expression of the Defendant’s employee, and thus, the Defendant is liable for employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Defendant must pay the Plaintiff the price of the said goods 32,230,638 won and delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination 1.