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. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a beverage or a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “C”.

The Defendant is a person registered as an internal director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) who conducts food cooking, sales business, etc. on January 19, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff concluded a drinking water supply contract with the Defendant and supplied drinking water to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 1,599,000 to the Plaintiff. ② Even if the Plaintiff entered into a drinking water supply contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied drinking water to the instant company without knowing that the Defendant had lent his name, and thus, the Plaintiff was directly operating the drinking water. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,59,000 to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act. (2) The Defendant is registered as the internal director of the instant company upon the recommendation of the Plaintiff to receive the construction price that was not received from the actual representative director of the instant company, and the Defendant did not actually operate the instant company or receive drinking water from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s first argument, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff concluded a drinking water supply contract with the Defendant (or, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have concluded a drinking water supply contract with the instant company and accordingly, supplied drinking water to the instant company until August 19, 2016, and the Plaintiff also stated that it supplied drinking water to the instant company at the trial). The Defendant supplied drinking water.