1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From Jun. 2, 2008 to Jun. 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on Jan. 13, 2014, on the trade name “C” (hereinafter “instant dan”); (b) on January 13, 2014, the Defendant sublet the instant dan from Jan. 21, 2014 to Jan. 20, 2015; and (c) around that time, D operated the instant dan.

B. From March 18, 2014 to April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the instant dynasium, which remains in KRW 5,050,000.

C. Business registration of the instant dan was not changed in the name of D, and was in the name of the Defendant.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul's testimony, Eul's testimony, the whole purport of pleading

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant alleged that the instant entertainment bar was directly operated, and even if not, the Defendant is obliged to pay the above liquor price to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant mispercing and trading the Plaintiff as the proprietor of the instant entertainment bar by allowing D to use his name and operate the instant entertainment bar, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said liquor price to D.

B. The written evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment on the claim of responsibility of the 1 transaction party is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant directly operated the instant dan or participated in the operation of the said dan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, according to the facts found earlier, D transferred the instant dan to the Defendant and did not change the business registration of the said dan in the name of D, and was in the name of the Defendant. However, the instant dan was merely operated entirely by D.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.