1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,526,67 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from August 7, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On October 2014, between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant of B Hospital Hospital Head, the medical device “Som Stir -1 - System: 79542”, “Magom Cx - 1 - Symem S/N: 2788” was concluded, and the Defendant paid the service amount accordingly; the fact that the service amount that the Defendant did not pay was 25,526,67, etc. does not conflict between the parties or that the Defendant did not pay the service amount by taking into account all the arguments as set forth in subparagraphs A through 6.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 25,526,667 won to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion was that the actual operator of the hospital B was the secretary, and the defendant was merely a doctor employed by C, and the above medical device use contract was concluded by C, not the defendant.

In addition, even though the Defendant is not the nominal lender, the Defendant is not liable for the nominal lender under the Commercial Act because the Plaintiff was grossly negligent due to his knowledge or gross negligence.

B. 1) Determination 1) In addition, even if the Defendant was employed by the medical doctor at B Hospital, which is the office-general hospital, as claimed by the Defendant, the obligation under the above medical device use contract, which was borne by B, in relation to the operation of B Hospital, shall belong to the Defendant, who is a medical doctor (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da30568, Sept. 26, 2014). 2) In regard to the liability of the nominal lender under the Commercial Act, it is difficult to deem the business to be subject to the liability of the nominal lender under the Commercial Act by establishing and operating the medical institution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’

3. All of the defendant's arguments are without merit.

3. Accordingly, according to the conclusion, the Defendant: (a) KRW 25,526,67, and for this, KRW 20% per annum from August 7, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the Plaintiff.