(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.06 2019가단20623

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.06 2019가단20623

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures signboards and advertisements, and engages in wholesale and retail business under the trade name of “C”.

The defendant is a company whose purpose is advertising agency business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff began to engage in the transaction of goods supply since E and since 2015 with the trade name D.

C. E has discontinued its own name’s business registration, and the Defendant allowed E to use the Defendant’s name.

Upon receipt of a request for supply from E, the Plaintiff supplied commodities such as banner by October 20, 2018, and the outstanding amount is 66,562,700 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant from around 2015 to October 20, 2018. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 66,562,700 of the goods price and delay damages therefor. Even if the Defendant is not a party to a goods supply contract, as the Defendant lent its name to E, and the Plaintiff traded to be mistaken for the business owner, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is not a party to the goods supply contract, and the Defendant is not a party to the goods supply contract, and E uses the Defendant’s business name, and the Plaintiff was grossly negligent in having known or having knowledge of the fact that the Plaintiff lent

B. Determination 1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was the party who entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the Defendant’s party to the contract is without merit. 2) Next, the Defendant’s liability for the nominal lender’s liability is examined

참조조문

-상법 제24조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.02.06 2019가단20623

-전주지방법원군산지원 2020.01.17 2019가단55895

-부산지방법원 2016.06.29 2015가합49340

-인천지방법원 2017.11.16 2017가단13211