1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,819,400 as well as 20% per annum from August 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who has been engaged in the manufacturing business, etc. of yellow Tae-Sa, etc. under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a business operator who has operated the wholesale and retail business of food with the trade name of "D".

B. Around 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a processing contract with E, and at the time, E entered into a contract under the name of D Company B.

C. After the conclusion of the above processing contract, E sent an order to the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff processed and supplied the Y to D, and the processing cost is equivalent to KRW 117,892,650 (including value-added tax).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the assertion was that the Plaintiff received E’s order pursuant to the Yellow Processing Contract concluded between C and D and processed and supplied E with yellow dust.

Since the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendant was a business owner of D, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay processing fees as the nominal lender even if the Defendant only lent the name.

(b) A person who permits another person to run his/her business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay back to a third party who has transacted his/her business misleading that person as the proprietor of the business.

(Article 24 of the Commercial Act). In light of the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire arguments, the Defendant permitted E to use his trade name and name; ② the Defendant’s name was used in the processing contract entered into with D; ② the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant; ③ the processing cost under the above processing contract was paid to the Plaintiff in D or the Defendant’s name; ④ the Plaintiff was also supplied with the Defendant; ④ the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice with the Plaintiff as the recipient of the tax invoice; and the Defendant impliedly refused to issue the said tax invoice in the name of the Defendant.