물품대금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells the heat apparatus, and the Defendant is a person who is registered as a business operator with the trade name of “B” in relation to the manufacturing and sales business of electric power sets.
B. From February 6, 2014 to November 29, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied hot boiler, etc. (hereinafter “instant commodity contract”) and issued a tax invoice equivalent to the supply amount in the name of “B” to the Defendant.
C. As of November 29, 2014, the price for the goods that the Plaintiff had not received is KRW 11,177,100 (including value-added tax).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff entered into a transaction with the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and subsequently closed the business, supplied the Defendant with hot water boiler, etc. from February 6, 2014 to November 29, 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 11,177,100 and the delay damages therefrom.
Even if the defendant lent only the name C, the defendant is liable to pay the above payment and damages for delay to the plaintiff according to the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. The defendant merely lent the name in the name of the business registration to the defendant C, and the plaintiff knew or could have known that C lent the name of the defendant's business operator, and thus the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. First, we examine whether the other party to the instant goods contract is a defendant.
The fact that the Plaintiff supplied the boiler, etc. from February 6, 2014 to November 29, 2014, and issued a tax invoice equivalent to the supply amount in the name of B is as seen earlier.
According to this, it seems that the plaintiff entered into the goods supply contract of this case with the defendant as the party in appearance, and supplied the goods.
However, the foregoing.