Where a person who has established a pharmacy by employing an owned or managed pharmacist has done drug transactions after completing business registration under his/her own name, the operator of the pharmacy.

Since Article 16 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that a third party, who is not a pharmacist, has registered as a business in the tax office by investing funds, operates a pharmacy by employing a management pharmacist, even if he/she has obtained permission for the establishment of a pharmacy under his/her own name under his/her own account, it is reasonable to see that the third party, who is not the management pharmacist, is a pharmacy operator.

Article 24 of the Commercial Act, Article 16 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant

Busan District Court (84Gadan6259)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,971,68 won with 25 percent interest per annum from the next day after the service of a copy of the gushesheshes to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff alleged that the non-party 1, who is the founder of the pharmacy directly or by his agent, sold medicines equivalent to 5,861,98 won between May 9, 1984 and October 19 of the same year, and that the non-party 2,971,68 won was not paid out of the price. As such, the plaintiff's testimony of the non-party 1-1 (the mark of the trading place, the non-party 2's testimony of the court below's testimony, and the non-party 1-2's testimony of the above testimony of the non-party 1-1 (the non-party 3-2's testimony of the above facts that the non-party 1-6's name was non-party 1's name and the non-party 1-6's name and the non-party 1-6's name and the non-party 4's name and the non-party 1-6's name and the non-party 1-6's name and evidence of the above facts.

The plaintiff asserts that in the internal accounting relationship of the above pharmacy, even if the non-party 1 is the proprietor of the above pharmacy, the defendant permitted the non-party 1 to engage in the business of purchasing drugs, etc. in the above (name omitted) pharmacy's name, and that the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the non-party 1 to pay the above drug price to the plaintiff who supplied drugs to the above pharmacy as the proprietor of the above (name omitted) pharmacy. Thus, first of all, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was mistaken for the defendant as the proprietor of the above (name omitted) pharmacy's business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, as seen above, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the above pharmacy's proprietor was aware of the non-party 1, and therefore, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the business owner of the above pharmacy was engaged in drug transactions with the non-party 1, and on this premise, it is without any need to further consider the defendant's liability as the nominal lender's name.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection shall be dismissed due to the ground for appeal. Since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, it shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost all of the first and second trials, and it shall be

Judges Ansan-gu money (Presiding Judge)