(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나3102 | 리걸엔진

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) 울산지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나3102

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 is a person engaged in the urban village manufacturing business under the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a stock company established for the purpose of chemical machinery and equipment construction, etc.

B. From March 12, 2015 to April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied urban village to C factories directly operated by the Defendant, from February 27, 2015 to March 10, 2015 (hereinafter “E site”), and from March 14, 2015 to June 5, 2015, the Defendant supplied “E” construction site (hereinafter “E site”).

(c) the price for the supply of the city is 10,187,100 won in total (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to supply an urban village and supplied the Plaintiff with an urban village equivalent to KRW 10,187,100 to the Defendant’s construction site, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said urban village price to the Plaintiff.

B. The order of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff is not the Defendant’s subcontractor, but the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay the city price to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. If an actor who enters into a contract of the relevant legal doctrine on the confirmation 1 of the contracting parties performs a legal act in the name of another person, who is the contracting party between the actor and the nominal holder constitutes a matter of interpretation of intent

Where the intentions of an actor and the other party agree, the parties to the contract shall be determined as the person who committed the act or titles in accordance with the agreed intentions, and where the intentions of the actor and the other party are not in accord, the parties to the contract shall be determined by determining, in accordance with what way the actor and the nominal owner should understand as the party to the contract, based on the detailed circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature

유사 판례

-대구지방법원상주지원 2017.06.07 2016가단1006

-대전지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단14437

-춘천지방법원 2015.06.02 2014가단6766

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.22 2018나16378

-수원지방법원 2016.04.14 2015나28620