logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.02.20 2018가단76060
운송료
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 87,652,637 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 6% from December 3, 2017 to April 25, 2018, and the following.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff entered into a marine transportation contract with C, which uses the Defendant’s name as the director (hereinafter “instant transportation contract”), and delivered plastic scrap scrap goods to the luminous port or the Incheon port on seven occasions from August 24, 2017 to December 2, 2017. The sum of the transportation charges is KRW 87,652,637.

(hereinafter “instant transport charges”). EF GH IJD (based on recognition), each entry in Gap 4 to 17 evidence (including serial numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant is a party to the contract of carriage of this case, the plaintiff is liable to pay the freight of this case to the plaintiff, or at least C has permitted the business to use his trade name, and thus, he is liable as the nominal lender.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant did not participate in entering into the contract of this case, and that C was only a transaction with the plaintiff by stealing the defendant's name.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the parties to the contract of this case as the Defendant, by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 through 17, 28 (including the number of pages) as the parties to the contract, as the parties to the contract of this case:

① The Plaintiff received the Defendant’s letter of directors from C and received the Defendant’s letter of directors, and received the same data as the Defendant Company’s e-mail as indicated in the instant transport contract. At the last time, the Defendant’s representative director, who received the Defendant’s letter of directors, stated the same company’s

② On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff’s representative director L, who was issued with the Defendant’s representative director K directly or directly, appears to have discussed about the instant transport contract, and thereafter, objection to the conclusion of the instant transport contract from K.

arrow