logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.05.13 2019나4034
물품대금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated the wholesale and retail business of air conditioners, and the Defendant sold or installed air conditioners (business registration number: D).

B. From June 201 to December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied goods, such as air conditioners, to the above “C”.

(hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”). C.

Around November 11, 1994, the defendant married with E, which was divorced on February 2, 2017.

On the other hand, E has registered its business (F) with the same trade name "C" around February 19, 2019, while the lawsuit in this case is pending, and continues to engage in the transaction with the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of an order to submit tax information to the head of the net tax office of this court to submit tax information, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant is the spouse of E and the registered titleholder of “C” as the registered titleholder; and (b) the Defendant, as a party to the instant goods supply contract, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 39,541,720 for the unpaid goods from June 201 to December 31, 2018.

② Even if not, the Defendant is liable to pay the above money as the nominal lender pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the defendant was the E’s spouse and was the registered titleholder of “C” is as seen earlier, but it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant operated the above business through the joint business of the E and the couple. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the defendant is a party to the goods supply contract of this case is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s business registration of “C” at the time of the instant contract for the supply of goods is registered under the name of the Defendant.

arrow