물품대금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall pay 41,321,000 won and 12% per annum from January 10, 2020 to the date of full payment.
1. The Plaintiff received KRW 57,840,000 from January 2017 to June 30, 2018 from Defendant B, who operated “D”, for the supply of long-term language equivalent to KRW 99,161,00.
The Plaintiff supplied Defendant C, who operates “E” from July 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019, with 286,373,00 won, and received KRW 164,050,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, A1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 41,321,00 (=9,161,000 - 57,840,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from January 22, 2020 to the day following the day of service of the complaint. Defendant C is obligated to pay from January 10, 2020 the amount of KRW 122,323,00 (=286,373,000 - 164,050,000) and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 22,
B. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion 1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is F and the actual management of D and E. The Defendants are only F and the Defendants are limited to the name lending. The Plaintiff also engaged in a transaction with F with the knowledge of the name lending. As such, the Defendants are not responsible for complying with the Plaintiff’s request. 2) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable with the third party who has transacted with the other party by mistake as the business owner, and a person who has permitted another party to engage in a business using his name or trade name
(Article 24 of the Commercial Act). The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal lender as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the nominal lender, he/she shall not be held liable. As to whether the other party to the transaction knew of or was negligent in making the fact of the nominal lender, the nominal lender who
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 1300 delivered on April 13, 2001