beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff concluded a contract for the supply of goods with the Defendant operating the “C”, which is an over-point store, and supplied food materials from April 28, 2017 to April 28, 2017, and remaining goods proceeds are KRW 70,098,037. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods unpaid, KRW 70,098,037, and delay damages therefor. 2) Even if the Plaintiff is not the Defendant but D, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, as the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to use his name and conduct business.
B. The defendant only lent the name of the business registration to the defendant D, not the party who entered into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also knew the above facts.
2. Determination
A. First, we examine who is the party who entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff.
In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including spot numbers), the result of the order to submit the tax information on the remaining Jeju Jeju Tax Office for the party deliberation, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the representative of the plaintiff's business registration for the period during which the plaintiff supplied food materials was the defendant, ② the plaintiff issued a tax invoice indicating the defendant as to the transaction of the supply of the goods to the branch of this case, ③ the credit card sales generated from the branch of this case was deposited into the account in the name of the defendant, ④ the defendant entered into a franchise consignment contract with Eul with the contents that the credit card sales generated from the branch of this case was entrusted to D with the operation of the branch of this case, and ④ it appears that D merely entrusted with the task of this case under the above contract.