1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The name of the Plaintiff Corporation was changed from January 26, 2007 to A (Plaintiff) corporation. The name of the Plaintiff Corporation was changed from January 26, 2007. The company engaged in agricultural products wholesale, retail, and incidental business, and E was appointed as a director on October 17, 2006, while E was in office as a joint representative director, representative director, or representative director from January 26, 2007.

B. The name of the Defendant Corporation was changed from J on September 1, 2010 to B (Defendant). The company engaging in agricultural products brokerage business, etc. is the company, and F was appointed as the Defendant’s intra-company director on August 30, 2010, and is in office as representative director or joint representative director from December 1, 2010 to that day.

C. Around 2010, the Defendant exchanged with H and their respective stores, a corporation, the representative of which is F, with H and each of which is working as the representative.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2 and 18, part of Eul evidence 26, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied agricultural products to the Defendant or the Defendant’s partner D, but was not paid KRW 169,031,200 out of the agricultural product price as of October 15, 2016.

Even if he/she was a transaction with the Plaintiff by lending his/her name from the Defendant, not from the Defendant’s employee or partner, the Defendant shall be held liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 169,031,200 won and damages for delay for the unpaid agricultural products.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff supplied agricultural products to the Defendant solely based on the testimony of the first instance court witness C, as to whether the Plaintiff falls under the transaction partner Gap and the other party Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 8, 11, and 13.

It is insufficient to recognize that or D is the defendant's partner (as seen in the following sub-paragraph (b), D is deemed to have leased the name from the defendant to engage in the transaction of agricultural products with the plaintiff), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(b)the existence of the nominal name holder's liability is in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.