beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가단5091232

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff, a person who runs a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “C”, was engaged in a transaction in a way that the Plaintiff, a household manufacturer, made an advance payment from February 2010 to the Defendant from time to time, and received furnitures, such as the receipt book, from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant goods transaction.” From February 23, 2010 to April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff received a supply of the instant goods after receiving KRW 400,295,920 to the Defendant. Ultimately, the instant goods transaction contract was rescinded without being supplied with a household amounting to KRW 37,672,880.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above amount and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. Defendant: The Defendant did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff at all, and D (the husband of the Defendant) made a transaction with the Plaintiff using the Defendant’s passbook account; thus, the Defendant does not assume the obligation to return money to the Plaintiff.

2. Issues and judgments

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff and the party who entered into a contract for the supply of goods and transactions are who.

B. On the other hand, in a case where an actor who executes a contract did a juristic act in the name of another person, in which case either the actor or the title holder is the party to the contract, the intent of the actor and the title holder shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the other party. If the other party does not coincide with each other, on the basis of the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, circumstance, etc. of the contract, if the other party is reasonable, it shall be determined by whom the actor and the title holder among the parties to the contract

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da240768, Mar. 10, 2016). As to the instant case.