1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is to concentrate fishery products and food and beverage sales business, and the Defendant is a person who operates an event store in a department store, large retailer, etc. under the trade name of “D”.

B. Around March 2017, the Plaintiff’s representative E entered into an agreement with the Defendant to supply goods to each event store operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”). From that time to March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 23,413,156 (including value-added tax) at each event store in D’s “D” from that time, and the goods equivalent to KRW 2,319,690 were returned and disposed of, and received KRW 6,367,330 from the Defendant.

C. C used the position of the head of the headquarters in “D.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 14,726,136 won (=23,413,156 won - (2,319,690 won 6,367,330 won) payable to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.)

B. The defendant's defense, etc. 1 argues that the amount equivalent to three million won among the goods supplied by the plaintiff to each event store "D" is consistent with the defendant's transaction, but the remainder is a transaction with the plaintiff using the defendant's business name since C has been a trade with the plaintiff since it has been actually a part of the defendant's business name, the defendant is not liable

Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into a continuous contract for the supply of goods with the Defendant who operated the event store under the trade name of “D,” and accordingly supplied goods to each event store of “D,” and there was no termination or change in the contents thereof.

According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant, “the Defendant’s business registration certificate was obtained by stealing the Defendant’s goods from the Plaintiff,” and C due to the suspicion of fraud.