beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2020.08.11 2019가단3312

물품대금

Text

Defendant B Co., Ltd. 123,828,546 won to the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 23, 2018 to April 30, 2019.

Reasons

Indication of Claim against Defendant B: as shown in the grounds of Claim in the attached Form.

(D) A claim against D was finalized by a ruling of recommending reconciliation. According to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019), the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is 12% per annum from June 1, 2019. Thus, the part of the claim for damages for delay seeking payment exceeding 12% per annum from June 1, 2019 is rejected.

The facts of recognition of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C are as follows: (a) the balance of the price for the goods not paid from the Plaintiff supplied to the Plaintiff from July 2017 to August 2017 (hereinafter “instant transaction”); and (b) the fact that Defendant C was registered as the business entity of the said “B” at the competent tax office during the said transaction period is either a dispute between the parties or a dispute between the parties, or the entire purport of each of the statements and arguments as set forth in subparagraphs 2 through 7, and 11 (including each number if the number of pages exists).

The plaintiff asserted by the parties is the party to whom the defendant C was supplied with the original team as the business owner of the "B," and is obligated to pay the said unpaid amount.

Even if Defendant C is the nominal name holder, Defendant C was permitted to engage in the business using his name, and Defendant C was obligated to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

Defendant C, the actual business owner of “B,” is Defendant C’s penal father, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless because it was well known that Defendant C is a mere nominal lender.

Judgment

The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act shall be to protect the third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner.