1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination as to the claim against the primary defendant

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant B lent the name of the business operator of the F funeral hall located in Busan Jin-gu D (hereinafter "the funeral hall of this case") to the defendant C, and the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant C who operated the funeral hall of this case. In accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the defendant B and the defendant C should pay the goods to the plaintiff jointly with the defendant C.

B. In full view of the facts without dispute over judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant C transferred the funeral hall of this case from the deceased G (hereinafter "the deceased") who is the husband of the defendant B to October 6, 2009, the deceased died before June 2010, and the defendant B succeeded to the name of the representative on the business registration certificate and the status of sub-lease under the above sub-lease contract between the defendant C and the deceased, and the plaintiff supplied goods to the funeral hall of this case and issued electronic tax invoices.

However, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is the responsibility of the third party who trades with the nominal user within the scope of the business when the third party misleads the nominal lender as the business owner (Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1852 delivered on March 22, 1983). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was mistaken as the business owner in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(O) In addition, the Plaintiff himself/herself and the Defendant B issued a tax invoice under the name of the Defendant, but the actual order was written by the Defendant C, and the Defendant B became aware of the process of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s argument on the Defendant B is without merit without any need to further examine.

2. As to the claim against the conjunctive Defendant, the Defendant C transferred the instant funeral hall from the Deceased and operated.