[물품대금][공1989.12.15.(862),1780]
The case affirming a claim for oil payment to the branch entry company by a person who supplies oil even though he/she is aware that it is a paper entry vehicle.
The borrower of the land-to-face vehicle paid the oil price necessary for the operation of the vehicle between the land-to-house company Gap and the land-to-house company Eul, and the oil supplier Eul knew that the land-to-land owner is the land-to-land owner of the above vehicle, and the oil supplier Eul, while supplying the oil before it, stated the name of the party to whom the goods are supplied in the tax invoice for the transaction as the land-to-ship company Gap, and received the oil price from Gap without claiming the oil price against the company during the transaction with Gap, it cannot be deemed that there was a special agreement under which Gap would bear the oil price on the sole basis of these circumstances because Eul and Eul did not intend to act on behalf of the company Eul and even if Eul did not intend to act with the other party.
Article 24 of the Commercial Act
Supreme Court Decision 88Meu15628 Decided September 26, 1989
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 87Na1488 delivered on December 6, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Since a vehicle used in the company belongs to an external ownership or a right to manage the vehicle, even in cases where a branch owner directly operates and manages the branch owner's vehicle, it shall be deemed that the branch owner acts as an agent in the ordinary business affairs for the management of the operation and management of the branch owner's vehicle upon delegation of the right to manage the operation of the branch owner's vehicle. Since the branch owner's purchase of oil necessary for the operation and management of the branch owner's vehicle constitutes an act of ordinary business affairs in the operation and management of the branch owner's vehicle, it shall be deemed that the branch owner's purchase of the oil was an act of ordinary business affairs. Thus, the branch owner's purchase of the oil is an act of purchasing the branch owner's vehicle without the intent of acting for the branch owner's agent, and there is no special circumstance to deem that the branch owner did not intend to sell the oil to the other party or the transport business owner's intention to directly supply the oil.
The court below held that the oil price necessary for the operation of the designated vehicle between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the owner of the designated vehicle in this case, was borne by the above non-party. The plaintiff was aware that the non-party 2 and the non-party 2, who operated the business of operating the designated vehicle in this case, was the owner of the designated vehicle in this case and supplied oil to the above non-party. The non-party 2, who issued the tax invoice for the transaction, indicated the name of the above non-party as the defendant company, and did not claim the oil price against the defendant company during the transaction with the non-party, and it was recognized that the non-party received the price from the above non-party. However, the non-party 1 had no intent to act on behalf of the above non-party in the oil transaction in this case between the plaintiff and the non-party as the owner of the designated vehicle in this case, and the plaintiff who is the other party, did not intend to trade with the defendant company, and thus, it cannot be deemed that only the non-party is directly supplied with oil.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)