1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should bear the instant food materials payment obligation as the Defendant’s actual business owner D. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was the actual business owner of D and filed a claim against the Defendant for the cost of food materials against the Defendant under the Busan District Court Decision 2013Da21419, but filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court after receiving the judgment against the Plaintiff’s failure, but the said judgment against the Defendant became final and conclusive. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should be liable for the nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, but the liability for the nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is intended to impose legal liability on the person who permitted the use of his/her name even if he/she did not actually engage in such act. As such, the Defendant in the instant case does not recognize the fact that he/she lent his/her name, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

C. The plaintiff and the defendant conspired for the purpose of acquiring the price of food materials from the plaintiff, and acquired the price of the food materials of this case 39,328,250 won, which is 39,328,250 won, which is the amount equivalent to the price of the food materials acquired through the tort, by the defendant. However, even when examining all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant and C conspired to acquire the price of the food materials from the plaintiff for the purpose of deceiving the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and therefore, this part of the claim is without merit.

The plaintiff is engaged in the business in the name of E-food similar to D, so it is mutually binding by Article 42 of the Commercial Code.