(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.09.21 2015가단33918

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.09.21 2015가단33918

고철대금반환

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 24, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty B and Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C to sell scrap metal at the site of removal.

B. However, the Plaintiff, who was aware that B was not registered as a business operator, proposed that B was a party to the contract, and that B participated in the above contract.

C. Ultimately, on August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant entered into a contract for the removal of scrap metal at the said removal site in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the payment was set at KRW 115,00,000 (Additional Tax separately).

(hereinafter “instant shipment contract”). Accordingly, the entire scrap metal was taken out by September 20, 2015. However, the Defendant paid 70,000,000 won as the intermediate payment as of August 18, 2015, and the total amount of KRW 10,000,000 as of September 18, 2015, and paid 45,000,000 won as of the intermediate payment as of September 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the whole purport of pleading

2. According to the allegations by the parties and the above facts of recognition by the court, the defendant and B are jointly and severally liable to pay the price under the instant shipment contract.

In reference to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, the defendant shall pay the unpaid amount out of the amount stipulated in the contract of the case.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that there was an agreement on the divided debt between himself and B, and B, and the obligation to pay for that obligation, which is divided into 60,000,000,000, and 55,000,000,000,000,000, which is to be borne by himself.

In other words, the reasons for the Defendant’s participation in the instant shipment contract are not for the separate sale and purchase of scrap metal and non-ferrous metal, but for the contractor with business registration. There is no content that the instant shipment contract separates scrap metal and non-ferrous metal, and rather, there is no content that the instant shipment contract separates scrap metal from that.

참조조문

-상법 제57조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.16 2016나37345

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2017.05.23 2017고단295

-울산지방법원 2015.01.28 2013고단3824

-대구지방법원 2013.08.02 2013고합56

-인천지방법원 2016.10.19 2015고단5225