1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,751,740 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 13, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of agricultural and livestock products, etc., such as the wholesale and retail business of industrial products, government offices, and vegetables, and the Defendant is a person who completed business registration on December 10, 201 with the trade name of “B” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. The Plaintiff supplied food materials, etc. to the instant restaurant from December 2, 2011 to April 6, 2016, and the amount of goods unpaid as of April 6, 2016 is KRW 25,751,740.

C. On the other hand, around April 2014, C completed business registration as joint business operators of the instant restaurant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff (1) The Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Defendant who registered the instant restaurant and supplied food materials, etc. ② Even if the Defendant is merely a nominal lender, the Plaintiff is liable to the Plaintiff who did not know of such fact. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount of goods unpaid to the Plaintiff as the trading party or the nominal lender.

B. Defendant: (a) around December 201, 201, only lent the instant restaurant under the name of Defendant to allow D to make its business registration under the name of Defendant; and (b) did not participate in the operation of the instant restaurant; (c) as the actual operator transferred the instant restaurant business to C on April 18, 2014, the actual operator of the instant restaurant after April 201 is C, and the Plaintiff was also aware of, or was grossly negligent in, having been unaware of, such fact; (d) the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjustifiable.

3. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff entered into a direct contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods, and the entries of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 are not sufficient to acknowledge them, and instead, in full view of the entries of evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to witness D’s testimony, the restaurant of this case is the restaurant of this case.