유류대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of oil wholesale retail business, etc., and the defendant is a person who has registered his/her business under the trade name "C".
On September 26, 2006, the defendant had a shared agreement with D on September 26, 2006.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, fact-finding on the members of the court of first instance, and the result of fact-finding on the Mapo-gu of the court of first instance, and the defendant's business registration as Eul's trade name to determine the whole purport of the arguments.
In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of Gap's 1 through 3, 5 through 8, Eul's 1, 3 through 7, 13, and 14 (including the number of branch numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is liable to pay the oil price to the plaintiff as the business owner or the title holder of Eul's business.
The Plaintiff from around July 7, 2017
9. By the end of 23.26.26,440,00 won in total (including value-added tax) to the Defendant (C) and issued electronic tax invoices (including the Defendant’s name, place of business, address, etc.).
The oil price was also paid in the name of the defendant.
At the time of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of D.
As the defendant's assertion, according to Gap evidence No. 8-9 for a considerable period of time, the plaintiff was making a transaction with C from May 5, 2016 at the latest.
It is difficult to understand that the name was not verified even though the defendant was aware of D who was not the defendant as a trading partner.
Even if D is in charge of C’s duties, since D is likely to operate C with the Defendant or to be an employee or a person with the Defendant, D is insufficient to recognize that only D was the actual business owner of C.
Even if the Defendant lent the name to D, it is also proven that the oil supply transaction with the Plaintiff was conducted in the name of the Defendant, and that the Defendant or D indicated D as the actual business owner at the time of the transaction.