1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 44,106,066 and KRW 15,231,066 from September 22, 2016 to the day of full payment.

1. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures, sells, exports, or imports leather products, and the Defendant is a personal business entity that manufactures handbags, etc. in the trade name of “B.”

[Reasons for Recognition] 1-1 and 2-1 of Evidence A

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. From December 2014 to April 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 560,993,786 to the Defendant as advance payment. The Defendant supplied total of KRW 516,887,720 to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the difference of KRW 44,106,066 (=560,993,786) to the Plaintiff (=516,887,720).

B. Defendant (1) The party involved in the transaction with the Plaintiff is Nonparty C, not the Defendant, who is the Defendant, and the Defendant has no reason to assume the above duty against the Plaintiff.

(2) Even if the parties to the transaction were to be the defendant, the defendant supplied all the goods corresponding to the above advance payment, and thus there is no obligation to return the advance payment.

3. Determination

A. (1) In a case where an actor who executes a contract commits a juristic act in the name of another person, who is a party to the contract between the actor and the other party, the parties to the contract shall first be determined by the agreement if the actor and the other party agree with each other. In a case where the intent of the actor and the other party is inconsistent, the other party shall be determined by the agreement between the actor and the nominal owner on the basis of the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content, and purpose of the contract, and the reasons why the contract is concluded.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4912 delivered on September 29, 1995, 2000Da3897 delivered on May 29, 2001, etc.). (2) In light of the above legal principles, the following are examined: (a) although a person who was in charge of actual business, such as the manufacture and supply of products, was not the defendant but the defendant's punishment C; (b) Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4-1.