물품대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 11 (including each serial number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, a company engaged in the steel plate manufacturing and processing business, etc., who was registered as a business operator from October 15, 2013 to May 21, 2015, can recognize the fact that the defendant supplied a panel equivalent to the sum of KRW 107,437,790 (i.e., the share of KRW 51,564,390 (the share of tax invoice issued to be KRW 5,873,40) to the account under the name of the defendant (D) during the period of the above transaction, the plaintiff has received part of the payment for the goods from the account under the name of the defendant (D) to 58,478,918 won, and the remaining amount payable.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 43,612,261 won calculated by deducting 63,825,529 won from 107,437,790 won for goods and delay damages. (i.e., 107,437,790 won - 63,825,529 won)
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant claiming the liability of the nominal name holder under the Commercial Act asserts that D is a company in which the Defendant actually operated the network E (the death of July 2, 2016), which is the Defendant’s temporary domicile, and the Defendant only lent the name of the business operator, and the Plaintiff also was well aware of such fact, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim for the payment of the goods against the Defendant, the nominal name holder.
In the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, which the Defendant asserts as the basis for exemption, the nominal lender is not liable when the nominal lender knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing the fact of the nominal lender’s name, but in such case, the nominal lender who asserts exemption shall prove it.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da17568 Decided October 11, 2013). The fact that the amount of goods was remitted from the Defendant’s account is as seen earlier.