beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.10 2014가합71753

손해배상 청구의 소

Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant A, Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant Young-chul Electronic Co., Ltd., KRW 22,30,044, Defendant B, and Defendant B, KRW 23,99,99, and KRW 99.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Youngdong Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company engaging in the electronic, electrical parts wholesale, retail business, etc., Defendant A is engaged in a business similar to that of Defendant C, and Defendant B is engaged in human resources supply business in mutual name.

B. A. E. E.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S.”) and the Defendants are members of the B2B website operated by KGnis Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KGnis”), and the said B2B website posted the terms and conditions of use that include the following:

Article 29 (Prohibition of Unfair Transactions) (3) No member who uses the e-commerce security guarantee of the Guarantee Agency (Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, etc.) and the e-commerce loan-based transactions shall commit any of the following unfair transactions prohibited by the Guarantee Agency:

1. Act of settling funds without any actual transaction of goods or services;

2. The settlement of goods and services transacted prior to the date of new issuance of an electronic commerce guarantee. (4) If a member makes a settlement of purchase funds or receives a settlement as a selling enterprise through an unfair trading act set forth in the preceding three paragraphs, the member shall be liable for the compensation for damages and the return of unjust enrichment arising from the unfair trading with a guarantee agency or company;

C. The non-party company entered into an enterprise purchase loan agreement with the non-party company on March 11, 201, where the non-party company received the goods and then submitted a tax invoice for the issuance of a sales company that can prove the facts of transaction through the B2B website operated by KR, and the non-party company borrowed an amount equivalent to the relevant transaction amount within the limit agreed in advance, and at the same time, paid directly to the sales company. The plaintiff entered into an enterprise purchase loan agreement between the non-party company and the non-party company on March 11, 201, with the non-party company receiving the above enterprise purchase loan from the company bank.