beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가합52896

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From July 200 to January 2012, the Plaintiff supplied dental raw materials to D for the purpose of manufacturing and selling therapeutic devices, including dental drugs, for the purpose of manufacturing and selling therapeutic devices.

B. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff confirmed D’s supply of goods and debt amount to D, compared with D’s account books, and demanded D’s signature and seal on the notice stating that the total amount of debt owed to D’s Plaintiff is KRW 889,553,765 as of the end of May 2012, which was as of the end of May 2012. D, on the purport that the total amount of debt owed to D is equal to that of the Plaintiff’s request for confirmation, signed and sealed D’s name plates and affixed seals as C’s operator.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction against D’s real estate, and received dividends of KRW 425,284,902 on June 13, 2013 in the auction procedure.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against E (hereinafter "E") seeking the payment of KRW 5,318,558 for the purchase price of goods, and the defendant asserted that the goods have not been supplied and received to E directly, as the above amount, and that the price of goods that D had not been supplied and received was equivalent to the above amount, and as the price of goods that D had not been supplied and received for the supply of the goods to E is equivalent to the above amount, the defendant's claim for the purchase price of goods against D upon transfer of all of the business related to the manufacture and sale of goods was also taken over. The court sentenced to the judgment that accepted the conjunctive claim in the lawsuit above, and this judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Defendant received a business transfer from D and the Defendant’s trade name “B” is common from the trade name “C” and the main part of “C” used by D, the Defendant is a business transferee who belongs to its trade name, and thus, is liable to the Plaintiff due to the business transferee D, which is in accordance with Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act.