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. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff operates a furniture manufacturing company with the trade name of "C," and the defendant has completed business registration as to the furniture wholesale company with the trade name of "D," and the plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply with D and supplied the furniture to D until May 4, 201, respectively, and the plaintiff did not receive KRW 7,533,100 out of the price for the said furniture.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 7,533,100 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff as a party to the above contract for supply of goods, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's husband E borrowed the defendant's name and substantially operated D, and the plaintiff also knew of such name lending at the time of transaction, so the plaintiff cannot seek payment of the price for the goods against the defendant, who is merely the nominal lender.

The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by mistake of the nominal titleholder as a business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the nominal name, he/she shall not be held liable. In such a case, the nominal lender who claims exemption from liability bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da10512 delivered on April 13, 2001, etc.). According to the aforementioned legal principles, according to the testimony and the whole arguments by the witness F of the party trial witness F, the Defendant’s husband E borrowed the Defendant’s name, thereby operating D in substance after completing business registration regarding D. The Defendant, who is the professional supervisor, was not involved in the operation of D. Meanwhile, the Defendant was not involved in the business.