1. The defendant shall pay 28,080,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from April 5, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7 (including virtual numbers), it is recognized that Eul, which operated "D gas station" located in Gyeongnam-gun C, had a total of KRW 28,080,00 as a result of the oil supply transaction between June 21, 2014 and November 24, 201 of the same year with respect to the defendant (F company) with respect to the total amount of KRW 28,080,00 as a result of the oil supply transaction. The plaintiff entered into a business comprehensive acquisition agreement with E on December 1, 2015 with respect to the above D gas station and transferred the above claim for the oil price to the defendant, and notified the defendant of the transfer of the claim on February 5, 2016.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff of the parties asserts that the defendant, who is the business owner of the F company, is the counterpart to the oil supply transaction, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above oil price to the plaintiff as the transferee of the claim.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the person who actually engaged in oil supply transaction with E is G who is the defendant's seat, and G is only a voluntary use of the defendant's business name and the vehicle, so that he does not have any contractual or legal obligation to pay oil.

B. As to who is a party to oil supply transaction, where an actor who enters into a contract of the legal doctrine on the confirmation of a party to the contract performs a legal act in the name of another person, the parties to the contract shall first determine who is the party to the contract or the title holder as the party to the contract, if the intent of the actor and the other party coincide with each other. If the two parties fail to agree with each other, it shall be determined by the parties to the contract, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, circumstance, etc. of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da53045, May 15, 1998). In this case, subparagraph 3-1, 2, and subparagraph 4, respectively.