1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The parties' assertion

A. On May 2018, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) concluded a contract on the supply of goods with the Defendant for freezing fishery products (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”); and (b) supplied freezing fishery products to the Defendant and C; and (c) as such, the Defendant and C bears the obligation for the act of commercial activity, and thus, is jointly and severally liable with C to pay KRW 17,865,000 for the unpaid goods pursuant to Article 57 of the Commercial Act.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not have concluded the instant goods supply contract with the Plaintiff, and C or C’s mother-friendly D had a copy of its business registration certificate with the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the goods price to the Plaintiff.

2. As to who the party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case entered into with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff stated as follows: “The Plaintiff received the order of goods by telephone from the mother of C and C, obtained the business registration certificate of E from C and D, and confirmed to D that the representative of D is another person who is not the Plaintiff (the Defendant) and confirmed that D is operating within the country.” In light of the content of the statement, it is reasonable to see that the party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case is not the Defendant, and it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff is a party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case as the Defendant’s business place operated by the Defendant from May to June 2, 2018 to May 6, 2018. The fact that the Plaintiff delivered the frozen fishery products of 20,856,000 won in total and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case is the Defendant.

By selecting the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant seeks the payment of the goods on the premise that the defendant has a partnership relationship with C, or on the basis of the name lender's liability.