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 parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff is running the retail sales business of food materials in Ssung City. Since the Plaintiff supplied food materials equivalent to KRW 5 million in total from November 1, 2015 to February 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money equivalent to the above price, the Defendant did not directly operate the said E main points.

The defendant asserts that since the business operator's name necessary for the operation of the E main store is leased, the defendant bears the responsibility of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

As to this, the defendant asserts that F, who was the former spouse of the defendant, has been aware that F, by stealing the name of the defendant, had operated the above main points. Since F, who was responsible for all debts related to the above operation, the defendant is not liable.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings by the Defendant’s statement No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages worth KRW 5,438,700 in total to the E main points registered as a business entity can be acknowledged.

However, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including the paper number), the defendant, after marriage with F, operated the main points of "G", "H", and "I" singing practice room in the name of the defendant. During that process, the defendant had a liability for loans equivalent to approximately KRW 1.5 million in the name of the defendant, and the plaintiff supplied food materials. The "E" point of this case where the plaintiff supplied food materials by stealing arbitrarily using its name without any permission or permission from the defendant. These problems led to the defendant's divorce with F and all obligations related to the operation of the main points, etc. are to be borne by F.

If so, the E branch office of this case is deemed to have operated F by stealing the name of the defendant, and the name of the defendant was approved by the defendant as to the use of the name.