1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,99,034 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 26, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff is a business entity mainly engaged in manufacturing synthetic resin, synthetic fibres and their inducements, etc., and the defendant is a business entity that mainly engages in manufacturing and wholesale business, such as raw body, fiber processing, raw body, etc., with the trade name of D, and the plaintiff supplied the defendant with the goods, such as E until April 17, 2018. The defendant paid part of the above goods, and the defendant has the obligation to pay the defendant the remaining amount of KRW 58,99,034 (including value-added tax) at the rate of 15% per annum from May 26, 2018 to the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant merely lent the name of D representative to F, and the plaintiff was aware that he was not the actual operator of D.

The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as a business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the nominal name, it shall not be held liable. In this case, it is reasonable to view that the nominal lender who asserts exemption bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew or was grossly negligent in making

However, it was known that each description of Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 11 is different from D's actual business operator at the time of the transaction.

The defendant's assertion is not sufficient to recognize that he did not know it by gross negligence, and there is no other evidence to prove it.