beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① supplies goods to the Defendant and the Defendant’s father, and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with his father C to pay the goods price and damages for delay. ② Preliminaryly, even if the Defendant is not a party to a transaction with the Plaintiff, C made a transaction with the Plaintiff using the Defendant’s name, such as registering its business and depositing the goods price in the Defendant’s name, and even if the Defendant was not a party to a transaction with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is also liable to pay the goods price and damages for delay to the Plaintiff as
B. The parties who traded goods with the Defendant’s assertion are not C but C, and even if they are liable to the Defendant, they are obligated to pay the price of goods only if they are limited to KRW 7,135,000 as “E” which registered business under the name of the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the parties to the Defendant’s obligation to pay the goods, or by the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 8 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and witness witness D of the first instance trial, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is liable to pay the goods price to the Plaintiff as the parties to the transaction with the Plaintiff after April 19, 2012, registered as business operator under the name of the Defendant. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was either the party to the transaction with the Plaintiff or the Defendant was permitted to conduct business using his/her name before the registration of business is made under the name of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable to pay the goods price before April 19, 201
1) C has been engaged in the transaction of goods with the Plaintiff for a long time while running the tegrative business, and C has filed a claim against C for the price of goods for which the Plaintiff seeks the price of goods from June 11, 2009 (Seoul District Court 2014Da32323, and the first instance court of this case).