beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.10 2018가단4821

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,109,310 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 24, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a gas supplier, and the defendant is a person who has registered his/her business with the trade name "C" in Nam-gu, Gwangju.

B. The Plaintiff supplied gas to C from May 2012 to August 10, 2017.

The Plaintiff received a partial payment of the gas price and remains 32,109,310 as of August 10, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff claims the gas price against the Defendant. 2) The Defendant asserted that the gas price prior to February 28, 2015, which was three years from March 7, 2018, the filing date of the instant lawsuit, was extinguished by extinctive prescription, only if the Plaintiff lent only the name of business registration upon D’s request, the husband of the female and female, but not actually operated the laundry.

As to the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is responsible for the name-holder, and the period of prescription has not expired since it is a continuous supply contract.

B. As long as the Defendant’s business registration is registered under his/her own name, unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant may be presumed to have carried on the business, and the Defendant is liable to pay the gas price thereby.

Even if the Defendant lent the name to D, it seems that the Plaintiff was unaware of such circumstances according to the overall purport of the oral argument, so the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the gas price with D in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

In addition, the gas supply of this case appears to be a continuous transaction, and the extinctive prescription begins from the time when both parties’ transaction was interrupted. As such, one year has not elapsed from August 10, 2017 until the time when both parties’ transaction was interrupted, the extinctive prescription was not completed.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s conclusion is as follows: KRW 32,109,310 and the service of a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff.

참조조문