beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.05.23 2018가합1065

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. On May 2, 2017, while running a gold-type manufacturing business with the trade name of Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff agreed to produce and supply gold-type KRW 249 million to the Defendant, and entered into a contract to supply additional goods to KRW 60,000 (hereinafter referred to as “each contract of this case”) by referring to the two contracts as a whole.

However, as the Defendant paid only KRW 110 million out of the above payment, the Defendant should pay the remaining price of KRW 217,360,000 (i.e., the remaining price of KRW 139,000,000 as of May 2, 2017, KRW 78360,000,000,000,000 for the supply contract for the additional supply contract, which was as of January 15, 2018, KRW 1306 x 60,000).

B. Defendant 1) A registered as the business name of Defendant 1 is D, and the Plaintiff is not a creditor of the said goods price, and thus, the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant lawsuit. The instant lawsuit is unlawful. (2) Defendant and D confirmed on April 27, 2018 that the said amount of the goods price claim was KRW 152 million, and transferred the said amount by dividing it into Company E, F, G, etc., and thus, no longer is a party to the instant lawsuit.

2. In a lawsuit on the performance of a decision on the main safety defense, the plaintiff's standing as a party itself is nominal, and such decision can be absorbed into the judgment on the propriety of the claim. Thus, the claimant for his/her right to claim a benefit is a legitimate plaintiff, and the person alleged as the obligor is a legitimate defendant.

As long as the Plaintiff claims that the claims under each of the above contracts belong to himself/herself, the standing to sue is recognized. Thus, the Defendant’s main defense against safety cannot be accepted.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As to who is a party to the contract where the actor, who entered into the relevant legal doctrine, did a legal act in the name of another person, is a party to the contract, first of all, if the actor and the other party agree to do so.